The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-12485, in the name of Margaret Burgess, on the Welfare Funds (Scotland) Bill.
15:45
I am delighted to open the stage 3 debate on the Welfare Funds (Scotland) Bill. I again thank Michael McMahon and the past and present members of the Welfare Reform Committee for their scrutiny of the bill and of the interim arrangements that are in place.
The bill is important in a number of ways. It is the first substantive welfare bill to come before the Scottish Parliament and it will provide a permanent and reliable safety net for people on low incomes. The bill sets out the high-level framework for welfare funds and lays down some important boundaries within which they will operate. For example, it expressly rules out the use of welfare funds to provide loans to applicants, and it requires local authorities to ensure that welfare fund customers are treated with respect and that their dignity is preserved. That is an important marker for how this Government wants to take forward the new welfare-related powers that are coming to the Parliament.
The detail of how welfare funds will operate, which we intend will be similar to the existing interim Scottish welfare fund, will be set out in regulations and guidance that we will consult on in the summer. By introducing the bill, we have demonstrated a long-term commitment to the Scottish welfare fund and allowed the option of independent review of cases by the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman. The funding for the welfare funds can also be ring fenced, if required.
That approach is in direct contrast to the position in England, where no equivalent systematic local welfare scheme is in operation. I am proud to be part of a Government that is taking a distinctive approach to protecting vulnerable people in Scotland.
At stage 1, the Welfare Reform Committee took evidence from a wide range of organisations and individuals. It is a testament to the successful partnership approach that we have adopted with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities—and to the hard work that local authorities have put in to develop the service over its short life—that the majority of the evidence that the committee heard at stage 1 was positive.
I also record my thanks to all those who work in the Scottish welfare fund teams across the country. I have visited a number of them and have seen how hard working they are, and how committed they are to the service that they are providing to their local communities.
There have been some amendments to the bill. The largest number of amendments at stage 2 were planned in advance due to the timing of our discussions with the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman. They related to the detail of the ombudsman’s role in undertaking independent reviews of local authority decisions on welfare fund applications. The independent second-tier review function is key to getting the right decisions for individual applicants and holding local authorities to account. It will provide a national overview of how the fund is working, and the feedback will give policy makers an insight into the decisions that are being made and how they relate to the policy intent.
Another key amendment to the bill was the removal of section 3, which related to outsourcing. It was originally included in order to allow local authorities to contract with external parties to provide services on local authorities’ behalf in the future. Many of our stakeholders were clear in their view that private sector companies should not be allowed to administer welfare funds. I had never envisaged that it would be private sector companies that would do that. However, as it was not possible to specify in the bill that private sector firms could not bid for those contracts, the bill was amended to remove that section.
We also took on board the views of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee by establishing in the bill a right of review of a decision by a local authority. We acknowledged that, as the bulk of the detail of how welfare funds will operate will be set out in regulations and guidance, regulations under the bill should be subject to affirmative procedure.
I return to the issue of families under exceptional pressure. There have, of course, been discussions about other amendments that were proposed. We debated that earlier. I know that many stakeholders and MSPs wanted families under exceptional pressure to be added to the bill as an explicit group. The competence issue surrounding amendments relating to families under exceptional pressure has been well rehearsed and I do not want to go over it again. However, I want to restate that families under exceptional pressure will continue to be able to access welfare funds in the same way as they do now.
I thank the minister for trying to clarify the situation but, in doing so, she is making the situation more bizarre. If it is the case that families under exceptional pressure can currently access the Scottish welfare fund, if an amendment had created a difficulty for the passage of the bill, all that would have happened is that the welfare fund would have continued to operate as it does, and families under exceptional pressure would have continued to access that fund. Why, then, was the minister so resistant to including families under exceptional pressure in the bill?
There are several issues here. The Scottish Parliament has always introduced competent legislation and we want to, and will, continue to do that. That is important for the Scottish Parliament.
The interim arrangements that we have now with COSLA operate on a discretionary basis. We have no arrangement that that would continue further. We are aware that some councils are coming out of COSLA. We want to ensure that we get the situation on a statutory footing: that is important. It is also important that we get the legal right of review into the process, which is what we are currently doing with the SPSO. That does not exist under the interim scheme.
It is important that we get the legislation right and make clear at the outset that families under exceptional pressure are not excluded from accessing permanent arrangements. We have been clear on that from the start. We are in discussion with third sector groups on that and they understand the issue involved. Their concern is that we should ensure that families under exceptional pressure are not excluded from accessing funds. All the information that we have is that they are not currently excluded and will not be excluded from the statutory fund.
On families under exceptional pressure, the statistics show that 38 per cent of households that receive community care grants contain children, compared to 32 per cent under the social fund. The figure for crisis grants is 30 per cent compared to 16 per cent under the social fund.
Another area that has been the subject of much debate is the provision of goods versus grants for community care grants, and how that links to choice for individuals. First, I repeat that the guidance on the Scottish welfare fund states that local authorities must ensure that the item awarded meets the need of the applicant. For example, where people need adapted or specialist items because of a medical condition or their family make-up, that item should be provided. It is not a question of choice—it is a need, and that need should be met.
However, the Scottish welfare fund is a budget-limited fund operating in a time of increasing need. For that reason, it needs to be able to help as many people as it can in the most efficient way possible. Local authorities have found that that means awarding goods rather than cash grants, particularly in the case of community care grants. I do not accept that providing choice would not lead to additional costs. Local authorities have given us information on that, and have stated that there would be higher administrative costs for them.
I reiterate that we will look at making cash or cash-equivalent payments the default position for crisis grants to meet immediate needs in the short term.
Many applicants tell us how much they appreciate the service that local authorities provide. Delivery and installation of the goods relieves a lot of stress, and that can often be arranged prior to people moving in to a house.
East Dunbartonshire Council said in evidence that it received £43,970 in administration costs, while the total cost of running the Scottish welfare fund in the area last year was £224,232. The funding gap had to be met by the local authority. There is a real issue with funding the welfare fund’s administration, which puts pressure on local authorities to ensure that they are looking for the cheapest but not always the best-value option.
Minister, you are completely out of time now, and I ask you to come to a close.
Margaret McDougall has answered my point. The amendments that she and Ken Macintosh have lodged would have put even more pressure on local authorities—as the authorities told us in evidence. Local authorities are trying to help as many people as they can in their area in the most cost-efficient way possible. In administrating community care grants, that is very often done by providing goods and not cash. I would prefer that local authorities be able to help as many people as possible.
I urge you to close, please.
Have I to wind up, Presiding Officer?
Yes.
Okay.
Delivery of the current scheme is generally viewed in a positive fashion. Most people have told us and the committee that local authorities are the right people to deliver the fund, and they have welcomed the independent review function. The approach to the bill has, on the whole, been very consensual, and I look forward to working with members of all parties in the chamber to ensure that the regulations and guidance under the bill help to deliver the best possible outcomes for welfare fund customers.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Welfare Funds (Scotland) Bill be passed.
I call Michael McMahon. You have up to seven minutes, but less would be more as we are very tight for time today.
15:57
On behalf of the Scottish Labour Party, I very much welcome what I am sure will be the passage into law this afternoon of the Welfare Funds (Scotland) Bill.
I thank the clerks to the Welfare Reform Committee, who have helped to get the bill to this point so efficiently. I am also grateful to the witnesses who informed deliberations on the bill as it progressed through Parliament.
Having heard all the evidence, I am in no doubt that placing the interim Scottish welfare fund on a statutory basis is the right thing to do. Parliament has heard the message that the interim fund has benefited many vulnerable people throughout Scotland. The fund has had its problems and is by no means perfect, but as the minister said, it has evidently been a comparative success.
I will focus first on the positives. Local authorities told us that creating a statutory duty will enhance the ability to retain staff members who bring expertise and knowledge to practical implementation of the fund. Strange as it may seem, what is no longer in the bill is also a positive outcome—the bill no longer allows for outsourcing. However, the potential benefits that can be derived from joint working between local authorities, such as economies of scale, increased purchasing power, sharing best practice and increasing consistency, will remain in place, and that can only be welcome.
Another constructive aspect of the bill concerns placing the review of decisions with the SPSO and having that organisation take on a new role as the second-tier review body. Views on that were split between local authorities, which thought that it would be more consistent with the principle of local self-governance for secondary reviews to remain in local authority control, and the third sector, which believes that use of the SPSO will make appeals independent, consistent and impartial. The Scottish Labour Party agrees with the third sector in that respect, and our agreement with the third sector does not end there.
However, that brings us to where our disappointments with the bill persist. It is completely beyond my comprehension why the Government has remained so resistant to the principle of dignity being enshrined in the bill. Although the bill sets out the circumstances in which a local authority can provide assistance, the failure of the Scottish Government to agree to an amendment that would have seen the needs of families facing extreme financial pressure added to those circumstances is a bitter disappointment. The bill clearly addresses needs that are the result of sudden crisis, but many families have needs that are on-going parts of their everyday lives.
The Department for Work and Pensions social fund had a category for such families under exceptional pressure, and although I acknowledge the Government’s assurances that it wants the fund to support that group of people, its absence from the bill means that it is now a commitment that comes without a guarantee. That is why Labour agrees with the third sector and that is why, as I have argued, the Scottish Government should have enshrined in law that all those who are in legitimate need of the fund are able to access it as of right. If the Scottish Government is able to put that in guidance, surely it is not outwith the ambit of the bill. If it is in the guidance, it could be in the bill itself. We now have the ridiculous situation in which a piece of legislation is going to be passed without that principle in the bill, but the powers are going to come to us through the Smith agreement and we may have to come back and amend the act to put in place exactly what is happening under guidance in the bill. What a ridiculous situation has been created this afternoon.
Surely Michael McMahon must accept that if, at the moment, we do not have the competence, it would be wrong, lest it risk the legislation, to put that in the bill, on the basis that in a few years, as a result of transfer of powers under the Smith agreement, we will have that competence. The point at which powers are available to this Parliament is the right time to re-examine things, rather than to do it pre-emptively when we do not have the powers.
No matter how many times Mark McDonald and his colleagues try to argue that case, it will not make any more sense to say that a bill would be jeopardised by including something that it will already do through guidance and which we will have the power to do at some point in the near future. If that is the case, why will not the Scottish Government do what it boasts of doing at any other time and stand up to the deadly Westminster Government and implement something that will benefit the people of Scotland? That argument is not acceptable. He can make it as many times as he likes, but it will not stand any serious scrutiny.
Quite frankly, to say that a provision can be in guidance but not in the law itself because of the Westminster wording of the section 30 order is a total cop-out.
Compelling arguments have also been made that it is better for an applicant to receive an award in the form of cash than to receive vouchers or goods.
Will Michael McMahon give way?
I need to make some progress.
The provision of goods allows councils to ascertain whether an award is being used as intended—and local businesses can benefit from organised procurement and distribution—but that ignores the fact that choice is essential in order to maintain dignity and self-determination and to reduce stigma for applicants. Treating applicants with respect despite their circumstances is vital, so providing options and meeting individual needs should be central to the process.
Given the increasing impact of welfare reforms, many of which are still to be seen, there is genuine concern about the growing level of demand on the fund, and worry has also been expressed about the variation in spend across Scotland. That is why the work of monitoring unmet need, understanding why it may have arisen, and watching out for potential shortfalls in administrative funding—which local authorities have already been supplementing—surely merits support for annual reviews taking place in order to ensure that the wider outcomes that the bill is trying to achieve are not jeopardised. However, for reasons best known to itself, the Scottish Government has yet again turned a deaf ear to that request.
Another positive thing came late this afternoon, however—the reduction in processing time for applications. Local authorities would have had 48 hours in which to process a crisis grant, while for the previous DWP fund the deadline was 24 hours. I welcome the minister’s decision to listen to the people who have said that, when the key word is “crisis”, it is essential that that part of the safety net that is provided to vulnerable people should not be extended beyond a whole day.
As I said at the beginning, Scottish Labour very much welcomes the creation of the Scottish welfare fund, but we agree with the poverty and disability organisations that believe that the principles of dignity and choice for applicants should have been enshrined in the bill. It is a good bill, but it could have been so much better.
16:05
This has been an interesting and almost unique process, in that the somewhat surprise devolution of an area of welfare expenditure required the Scottish Government to bring together an interim Scottish welfare fund and put it in place a year before the legislation to formalise it was produced. As a consequence, we have taken the suck-it-and-see approach. We have seen what has been done well and where there have been problems and we have made changes in the legislation in some cases, when it has made good sense to do so.
At the end of the day, not many people opposed the move away from loans to grants, such as community care grants and crisis grants. One local authority argued that it might be appropriate to continue with loans; perhaps we can do something else with loans in the future, but it is right that this scheme should concentrate on grants. I see no problem with that approach.
The key issue that came to the fore even during the interim scheme was the need to incorporate a proper appeals procedure in the scheme. With the bill passing its final stage in Parliament, we can formally put that procedure in place.
Key elements that were discussed during consideration of the bill in committee included the 24-hour versus the 48-hour timescale. I am glad that we seem to have come to a conclusion on that and that the minister has put our minds at rest.
One person—a scheme user—who gave evidence to the committee thought that their application had been completed in the initial phone call yet believed that they were left to wait for 48 hours until news of their successful application was passed back to them. If that happened, that was unacceptable. I hope that it did not happen and that it was merely an impression that was created in error. We have had a clear indication from the minister that that is not the intent, so such cases should not—and hopefully will not—happen.
We have seen from the interim scheme that local authorities are very good at doing this kind of thing. There has been a mix of success rates, and we were in a dangerous situation for a while, when we thought that the interim scheme would be underspent because it took so long for people to understand what was available and for systems to be put in place to pass out that money.
The Scottish Government added money during the year, which resulted in more money being available. However, at the end of the process, we had a scheme that had largely run to budget, supplied support for those who needed it and given us examples of good practice in many local authorities across Scotland. I hope that the scheme is a successful model that we can perhaps adopt for the delivery of other support mechanisms that are yet to be devolved to us.
One area that I am disappointed about is the outcome of the discussion on outsourcing. I perfectly understand that most people in the Parliament—perhaps not including me—object to the private sector’s involvement in the provision of public service. However, such provision could give us the opportunity to include skills and knowledge that are held in the third sector and to use them in the delivery of the scheme. I hope that we have not lost that opportunity completely by virtue of the fact that some have an aversion to private sector involvement.
We discussed at length today the fact that the Government has chosen to go down the road of the affirmative procedure for changes in the legislation once it is brought in. I will go off at a tangent here and say something quite clear—
Not too much, because you have 30 seconds left.
I believe that the negative procedure is underrated and underused. In the bill’s case, the negative procedure would have allowed change to happen more quickly if the need for change was identified.
In the long term, we should be concerned about the very high administration costs of the scheme. In the grand order of things, the scheme is relatively small, and too much of the money will be spent on administration. We have to drive down administration costs in the future, when we will have more responsibilities.
We will support the bill.
We move to the open debate. I remind members that speeches should be of up to four minutes. We have no time in hand.
16:10
Between April 2013, when the interim fund was established, and June 2014, 100,000 households were helped by the Scottish welfare fund. On the bill that is before us, Councillor Norman MacDonald of Comhairle nan Eilean Siar told the Welfare Reform Committee:
“legislation will give certainty not just to local authorities but to the clients about what is in place.”
Dave Berry of Dundee City Council said:
“The proposed legislation would give local authorities assurance. In fact, they will now have a duty that must be done. That can only be good for the continuing development of the Scottish welfare fund.”—[Official Report, Welfare Reform Committee, 30 September 2014; c 18.]
It is absolutely right that we lay out the legislative framework and put the interim scheme in statute.
I am a little disappointed that we are constrained by the powers that we have. We have debated that today. One thing is for sure: I want to make certain that the bill receives royal assent so that the duty is there and local authorities must do all that they can to help those who are in greatest need.
As I mentioned earlier, we have a fund of £38 million to mitigate the effect of £6 billion-worth of welfare cuts. Although good work is being done across the country, it has to be said that the onslaught of austerity and welfare cuts that we are facing is incredible. Families across the country are suffering because of the Westminster Government’s policies.
On some aspects of welfare reform, some Tory ministers have expressed their ire. Today’s Guardian reports that Nick Boles, a Conservative minister, has described sanctions as “inhuman”. It is hardly a system that has dignity and respect at its heart. I am pleased that the Scottish Government was willing to accept the amendment that I lodged at stage 2 to ensure that all welfare fund applicants are treated with respect and that their dignity is preserved. I wish that the Westminster Government would take lessons on that.
The interim scheme did not provide some things that we wanted, including an appeals system. I am glad that the issue of an appeals system has been resolved in the bill.
You need to start winding up.
I am also pleased that we chose not to go down the road of loans, which would have been detrimental to those who are in greatest need.
A fund of £38 million to mitigate the effect of £6 billion of cuts is not all that is required, but it is all that we can do at present. In terms of the future powers of the Parliament—
I am sorry, but I need to move on. Malcolm Chisholm is next.
16:14
I welcome the fact that the Department for Work and Pensions transferred funds for community care grants and crisis loans to the Scottish Government in 2013; that the interim scheme that was set up then is to be set in statute; and that there has been progress between the interim scheme and the bill that is before us. In particular, I welcome the fact that we are to have second-tier reviews through the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, which will give the public more confidence in the appeals process, although we have to advertise all the time people’s right to appeal.
I welcome some of the changes that have taken place during deliberations on the bill—most notably the dropping of section 3, which would have involved outsourcing to the private sector. I was also perhaps a little surprised but certainly pleased that the Government accepted the 24-hour time limit on decision making that Ken Macintosh proposed today.
However, we have gone backwards from the interim scheme in one regard at least—that of families experiencing exceptional pressure, on which we had the most contentious debates today. Ken Macintosh gave graphic examples of such families, such as lone parents facing pressure through a relationship break-up or people fleeing domestic violence. I have still not heard from the minister—perhaps we will hear it in her closing speech—how it can be outwith her powers to put something in primary legislation but not outwith them to put the same words in secondary legislation. I have never heard that in all my many years in Parliament.
Will Malcolm Chisholm give way?
I am sure that Stewart Stevenson will enlighten me.
The issue is not vires but who is a gatekeeper. There are no gatekeepers for secondary legislation except the courts, but gatekeepers exist for primary legislation and they block it. That is why it matters.
That is an interesting point, but I still find it strange. As Stewart Stevenson likes this kind of thing, it would be interesting if he could find me a precedent for it happening in the years of the Parliament or even before. I have no doubt that he will do that for his homework and tell me tomorrow.
This is the beginning of welfare devolution. I would like there to be quite a bit more, and we will certainly get more from the Smith proposals. It is therefore important that we have clear principles in the bill that will be at the centre of the devolved aspects of the welfare state. That is why the amendments about taking into account needs and choices were important.
Those amendments related to the issue of cash versus vouchers. Inclusion Scotland made an interesting comment when it said:
“the use of vouchers may impact on the dignity and respect of applicants”.
It is striking that we had strong evidence from Inclusion Scotland, the Child Poverty Action Group and others whom the Government might normally heed more. That is an important point, and I was disappointed that all the amendments that Labour proposed on the issue were defeated.
That also applied to our proposal for annual reporting. We have to keep a close watch on how the bill works. The Child Poverty Action Group referred to continuing problems of gate keeping and poor data collection. Another point that has not been mentioned, and which struck me as surprising when I realised it, is that the fund was underspent last year.
We have to keep a careful watch on the fund. The Finance Committee, on which I sit, considered the administrative cost and welcomed the benchmarking exercise that COSLA was doing on that. Perhaps the minister could update us on it in her closing speech.
You need to draw your remarks to a close.
I am just coming to a conclusion. I have 20 seconds.
The Finance Committee also asked how the Government arrived at the figure of 2,000 second-tier reviews when there have been only 144 this year.
We have to monitor the bill closely, even if there is to be no annual review.
16:18
I welcome the chance to contribute to the stage 3 debate on the Welfare Funds (Scotland) Bill. As members are aware, I am a relatively new member of the Welfare Reform Committee. When I was appointed to it, I met the clerks, who told me that, unlike some other committees of the Parliament, it is a consensual committee. They were not wrong.
The committee’s consensual nature is due in no small part to the issues that it deals with, and the Scottish welfare fund is a good example. People who access the fund are desperate and their individual circumstances must be acknowledged and respected, not politicised. That is not to say that members do not have their disagreements—as we have had today—but, in general, it is fair to say that we are broadly aligned in opposing Tory welfare reforms and taking action to mitigate their effect in Scotland.
Members around the chamber have all dealt with cases that highlight the terrible consequences of United Kingdom Government welfare reform for some of our most vulnerable citizens. As has been mentioned, the Scottish welfare fund has already helped 100,000 households, and it is right that we put it on a statutory basis to ensure that that vital help continues. It is, of course, not right that so many of our citizens need that help in the first place.
Themes that have arisen in the committee as the bill has progressed are concepts of dignity, choice and respect. I was pleased that the minister lodged amendments at stage 2 to remove the ability to outsource the scheme, so there is no risk that private companies will be left in charge—not that that was ever likely to happen under this Scottish Government, but safeguards are nevertheless welcome.
Those themes were also raised in relation to the ability of local authorities to give support in kind, rather than cash, as has been discussed today. I sympathise with Ken Macintosh’s intentions in amendments 2, 3 and 5 but, as Kevin Stewart and the minister pointed out, most of the in-kind grants are to help people who are leaving institutional care, and choice is available.
Another point that has been made is that we have a £38 million fund to deal with benefit cuts of £6 billion, and we simply have to ensure that as many people as possible are helped by that fund.
The £100 million that the Scottish Government is providing in 2015-16 is a drop in the ocean. There will be huge pressures on the fund and we must acknowledge the opportunities that COSLA outlined in its briefing for bulk-buying goods. I do not believe that the bill is the correct place to address those issues.
I have sympathy for amendment 7, which Margaret McDougall lodged. It would have required consideration of applicants’ particular needs and choices. However, we must be careful when working in the context of extreme budgetary pressures not to increase the administrative burden on local authorities.
It is important to remember that the people who will access the fund can be facing absolute destitution. The pot that we have to help them is limited and, if we do not use it cost effectively, other people who are facing that absolute destitution will be deprived of help.
At stage 2, my colleague Kevin Stewart lodged an amendment to require local authorities to take reasonable steps to ensure that all welfare fund applicants are treated with respect and have their dignity preserved. That goes a long way towards addressing Margaret McDougall’s concerns.
I hope that members across the chamber will be able to support the bill, albeit with a heavy heart. As other members have outlined, and as I have said before, in such a wealthy society as ours, we should not have to pass such legislation.
16:22
When welfare reform at United Kingdom level seems to be incoherent and downright scary for most if not all vulnerable people, it is welcome that the Scottish Government and the Welfare Reform Committee have taken time to consult and be guided by the many excellent third sector organisations across this land that understand and support the victims—I do not use the word “victims” lightly—-of welfare reform, which seems to be more about reform and less about the actual welfare of our citizens.
The amended bill that is before us today proposes placing a duty on local authorities to deliver the fund, in line with regulations and guidance that may be issued by Scottish ministers. As we know, local authorities have been delivering the fund on an interim basis. The fund is intended to provide a safety net for vulnerable people in an emergency when there is an immediate threat to health and safety, through the provision of crisis grants.
I thank the Child Poverty Action Group for the advice and information that it has provided to us during the scrutiny of the bill. It said:
“The development of the Welfare Funds bill, with additional Scottish Government investment in a national Scottish welfare funds scheme following the abolition of DWP crisis loans and community care grants has provided a level of support to households in Scotland now sadly lacking in many other parts of the UK.
Currently, the fund provides a vital means of support for vulnerable, low income households who are in or at risk of crisis, facing exceptional pressures or whose ability to live independently is threatened. It plays an important preventative role, providing a safety net to reduce pressure on costly public services such as residential care, homelessness services and the NHS.”
The fund will also enable people to live independently or to continue to live independently, preventing the need for institutional care, through the provision of community care grants.
When I was a training officer in social work services, I delivered a course called “Promoting Independence”. It was about not Scotland’s constitutional future but the value that is placed on personal independence for people with additional support needs and disabilities. I therefore draw the minister’s attention to the concerns that were raised by the many organisations that gave evidence on the bill. I know that she will be well aware of them, but I want to reinforce the need for clear and unambiguous guidance on the needs of people who fall into the category of families under pressure. I know that the minister holds dear the fundamentals of proper wraparound care for families, and I welcome her reassurances on that particular matter.
In her briefing to us, which as usual was excellent and forthright, Lynn Williams, on behalf of the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, said:
“We must not underestimate the importance of this legislation. The Fund is small but its reach is significant. It is the final safety net for people in need. Scotland can take its first steps in creating a more compassionate social security system with a fair, inclusive and empowering safety net established as a result of this Bill, or we can continue to stigmatise those in poverty. As parliamentarians, we ask you to take the lead in this journey and support amendments to this important piece of legislation.”
I say to colleagues and the minister that we have been set a high standard indeed, but it is one that all parties in this Parliament can live up to. If we do not, we have superb advocates in the likes of Lynn Williams, CPAG, Inclusion Scotland and many others to remind us why a welfare state should be just that: a place of safety for our people in need. I commend the bill and the work of all those who have been involved in bringing it to this stage today.
16:25
I strongly support the Welfare Funds (Scotland) Bill, which will put in statute measures that have been of an interim nature, and I recognise the minister’s role in introducing it to Parliament.
The parliamentary committee has done important work in scrutinising the bill and listening carefully to those who have been directly affected by so much of welfare reform, which is without doubt painful and extremely difficult for many people. I recognise the submissions that have been made in advance of the stage 3 proceedings and I reflect, as might one or two members who have been involved in the Smith commission but are not here today, that some of the most compelling evidence given in recognition of the changes that Scotland can and should be able to introduce in the future are in the area of the safety net that we provide for those of our citizens who are less fortunate than others. There is no question but that there will be further progress in this broad area of policy and I hope that the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee, under Bruce Crawford’s careful chairmanship, can reach a sensible cross-party accommodation of what is certainly a difficult policy issue. In my view, there is no doubt that that progress will be made.
I also recognise the point, which Malcolm Chisholm first made, about the review mechanism that the Government is introducing through the bill, in the shape of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman. That body, with which many of us interact on behalf of our constituents daily, does not have a completely blemish-free record. Every person who does not make their complaint stick is less than enamoured with the SPSO, but nevertheless I welcome the Government’s intent to introduce the appeal mechanism and ensure that there is a second-tier reviewer. I am not sure that that welcome will be universally shared by those who make the initial decision, but that is the nature of the game.
In that context, I recognise that local authority officers make difficult decisions in many existing areas of devolved policy, whether on housing allocations or other issues that directly affect people’s lives. The bill has added another tier of responsibility to those officers and with the Smith agreement and what will happen thereafter, more will be added to that workload. We need to recognise that in how we support local government.
I have two points on the amendments that were carefully considered by the Parliament, although whether they were “carefully considered” is a moot point given that the time for back benchers—never mind the ministers—was so limited. We could reflect many times on whether we have ever got that right in the 16 years that we have been in this place.
My first point concerns the debate on goods versus cash and how Government should frame the issue for local authorities to make the decision. The state should not assume that it knows best on these occasions, but when I listened to that debate it seemed that a very top-down approach was being taken. Surely we should do this from the bottom up. That was reflected in some of the submissions that we all read prior to this debate.
My second point is on the annual report, which the minister does not agree with. I understand that; I was a minister too, and I always had civil servants telling me that we could not do something. This is a really good point about parliamentary scrutiny when we introduce something new, to find a different way to do things. We are introducing something new here, and I think that Parliament should adapt and change over time, not just do things the way that we have always done them. Our committee structure is not perfect, but I am absolutely sure that Audit Scotland will pore over all this and we should be ahead of the game, rather than wait for it to happen afterwards.
16:29
I thank the Welfare Reform Committee, of which I am not a member, and the minister for the work that they have done on the Scottish welfare fund. We welcome the £38 million and I know that the Scottish Government will use it in the best interests of the Scottish people.
However, we need to highlight the fact that 85 per cent of welfare powers are still in the control of Westminster. I know that Michael McMahon, who has just walked behind me, agreed with the third sector in his contribution. I say to other parties in the chamber that it was a pity that they did not support the 65 voluntary organisations, including the SCVO, Children 1st, Engender, Barnardo’s and the Poverty Alliance, which called for the devolution of welfare powers. As other members said, we are looking at £6 billion of cuts to welfare. Yes, £38 million is something, but what a missed opportunity to be able to say to our people that in a rich country such as Scotland they do not have to scrabble about looking for extra money when they are in dire straits.
Let us look at the benefits that are still reserved: universal credit, employment support, income support, housing benefit, child tax credit, jobseekers allowance, state pension, pension credit, incapacity benefit, child benefit, in-work credit, and maternity and paternity pay—all reserved to Westminster. We had the opportunity to make sure that they were brought to the Scottish Parliament.
However, as I said, I congratulate everyone on the Welfare Reform Committee on the work that they have done. We have the £38 million at the moment and we will use it in the best interests of the Scottish people.
I want to touch on a couple of issues, which I think Tavish Scott also mentioned. I tried to intervene—twice, I think—on Mr Macintosh, but I was not successful, so I will pick up the points just now. Ken Macintosh and, I think, Margaret McDougall, asked whether the fund would be operated through grants or cash. Their colleague Michael McMahon answered their question, because he said that local authorities could work together and purchase using economies of scale. I have seen examples of that in my constituency, as I am sure that others have. People get the goods almost straight away. It creates employment and recycles. People can go and pick up the goods that they desperately need and give over the grant that the local authority gives them.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry, but I do not have much time. I would have liked to take an intervention. Ken Macintosh’s colleague answered the question; it is about economies of scale and local authorities working together.
The other issue was competency. I tried to intervene during that discussion. Most people here know that I have been trying to push forward a bill on responsible parking. I have been told on many occasions by the clerks in this Parliament and the legal team in this Parliament that even if the bill went through the Parliament it could still be deemed not competent and someone could still challenge it in court. We have to remember that. It is not stopping me obviously—I am still pushing the bill forward—but it has made it more and more difficult for me to get what I think should be welcome legislation through the Parliament. Those are the constraints that I, and others, have been put under by the advice that we have had from the Parliament that the bill could go through but still be deemed not competent and challenged. I remind members that it does not just happen with the Labour amendment or this bill—it has happened previously.
16:33
I am the newest member of the Welfare Reform Committee and it has been a very interesting time for me to join the committee as the bill has made its passage through the Parliament.
This is a significant piece of welfare legislation and it is crucial that we get it right to protect vulnerable people. Therefore, I am disappointed that the Scottish Government decided not to support the Labour amendments today, because they promoted choice, openness and transparency and provided support to families under exceptional pressure.
The argument that my amendment on choice would put additional pressure on local authority budgets is frankly nothing more than a smokescreen. The amendment is effectively cost neutral and would allow a local authority to pay either in cash or in kind based on what the claimant would prefer and what would best suit the needs of that individual, after discussion with the local authority. It goes hand in hand with Kevin Stewart’s amendment that was accepted at stage 2, as choice is crucial to dignity and respect. My amendment was supported by the Poverty Alliance, which argued that the refusal to trust applicants with monetary grants increases stigma and can make an individual at a very low point in their life feel that they are receiving handouts rather than accessing legitimate support from the state social security system. It was also supported by the SCVO, which stated that the fund should be driven forward by choice and should set a benchmark for any future legislation.
Today, the Scottish Government had a choice, and it chose to ignore the calls of Scottish Labour, the Poverty Alliance and the SCVO.
It is also worrying that the Government has voted to block openness and transparency by refusing to support annual reporting. The Lib Dem member, Tavish Scott, made a good point. The legislation is new, and we should be looking at new ways in which to review and scrutinise it. In my view, we should do that with an annual report. The amendment was supported by the SCVO, which has called on the Scottish Government to ensure that the fund will be comprehensively reviewed and scrutinised by the Parliament, as set out under the provisions of the Welfare Reform (Further Provision) (Scotland) Act 2012.
I understand that that information will be collected and collated elsewhere, but I asked that the Scottish Government bring it in a specific annual report to Parliament to be reviewed and scrutinised. That would have given the Scottish Parliament a formal role to play in the process. We have already heard, for example, that there was a huge underspend last year. It is crucial that we set a clear benchmark for future legislation in the field. The bill was the opportunity to do that, given that the system is new and untested and that the bill is one of our first pieces of welfare legislation. I find it unbelievable that, even though that was proposed in the Welfare Reform Act 2012, it has been blocked today.
To conclude, I am disappointed that the Scottish Government decided to vote against Scottish Labour’s amendments, except for Ken Macintosh’s amendment on processing time, and all the amendments that were widely supported by the third sector. The Government has voted against the principles of choice, openness, transparency and supporting families that are under exceptional pressure. The bill was one to set the future standard of welfare legislation in Scotland. We have witnessed that the Scottish Government’s rhetoric does not match reality.
16:37
There we have in a nutshell the problem with the Scottish Labour Party. It assumes that, because we did not agree with its amendment to put something on the face of the bill, ergo we must be opposed to supporting families. That is the kind of Punch-and-Judy, black-and-white approach to welfare issues that does the Labour Party no credit whatsoever.
I have no hesitation in supporting the bill, although, as Joan McAlpine quite rightly pointed out, it is not something that we should feel the need to introduce in a wealthy society. Nonetheless, that need exists because, as has been pointed out, around £6 billion of welfare cuts will affect the most vulnerable people in our society. The bill as it stands allows for a £38 million fund, because that is the limit that we can extend to with the powers and resources that we have. However, we are installing a safety net below a safety net. The welfare system, as administered at the UK level, should be the safety net that catches people, but we are seeing a system at Westminster that is widening the holes of that safety net. That will mean that more people will fall through it, so we have to install our own safety net below that. Although it is a small safety net in comparison with the cuts that are affecting people, it is required and it will deliver real, tangible impacts on some of the most vulnerable individuals in our society.
I want to focus the majority of my remarks on the argument in the debate today over the Labour Party’s amendment that could have seen the bill potentially not being awarded royal assent.
First, there is a difference between legislation and guidance. Guidance to legislation does not require royal assent. That is why the matter can be put into guidance. Secondly, Michael McMahon argued that what we ought to have done today is to pass the amendment and then have a fight with the Westminster Government over it. He said that the Scottish Government should just fight with the UK Government, because apparently what we are all about is just fighting with the UK Government.
Will Mr McDonald give way?
I will give him the opportunity to clarify the remark that he made, but I am sure that the Official Report will show it accurately.
I have no intention of clarifying the remark because I never made that remark. Will the member accept that it is not the Parliament’s authorities that said that the amendment could not be passed? That was only the minister’s advice. No one else has said that we would have the difficulty that he is trying to get the Parliament to accept.
The member will note that the clear advice that came back was that the issue is around not admissibility but competence. There is a very big difference between those two things. At the end of the day, the matter is in the gift of the Advocate General rather than in the gift of the Parliament’s lawyers.
The second element of the argument appears to be that powers will come to the Parliament eventually as part of the Smith commission process, so let us act before the powers are transferred. That is exactly the issue that has led to our not being able to agree to the amendment, and it is a risky strategy. It is a risky strategy because the risk is carried not by the Scottish Government but by those vulnerable individuals who would find themselves unable to access the fund were the legislative competence to be challenged. That is why the amendment could not be agreed to, and I would have hoped that the Labour Party would at least have been able to understand that.
16:41
The debate has been genuinely interesting. There have been moments of exchange and passion, and it represents the conclusion of an important and interesting process for a number of reasons.
The bill’s scrutiny, which was embarked on by the Welfare Reform Committee, followed the operation of an interim scheme that was the implement of devolution of the social fund. That background is important for both local authorities and the Scottish Government, as it informed them about what works and what does not work. That practical information has informed both the bill and the scrutiny process, and I hope that this legislative process will provide a template for how the Parliament approaches the new and important welfare powers that are being delivered on the back of the Smith agreement.
The bill does something else, too. It rightly recognises the relevance and the importance of using local authorities, with their geographical spread, for the delivery of a key welfare provision. It also recognises that the local authorities have gleaned experience and have built up expertise that forms a solid base for the current system and holds out well for the future. I foresee further opportunities for local authorities when the new powers are introduced.
It is clear that the bill, with the amendments that were passed today, provides a vital local link to people in sudden and perhaps unpredicted need, with the swift provision of help to meet that need. There is also a welcome recognition of the importance of conferring on local authorities flexibility in how to meet that need. We are all agreed that, when extreme difficulty is encountered, help should be at hand that is quick and appropriate. I think that the bill achieves that objective.
However, I was less than impressed by the Scottish Government’s opposition to Mr Macintosh’s amendment 4, which would have enabled qualifying individuals to include those who are part of a family facing exceptional pressure. Mr Macintosh argued his point well and identified a need to clarify the definition of qualifying individuals. The Scottish Government said that the amendment would place the bill beyond the scope of the section 30 order and that the whole bill would then become ultra vires. That may be an opinion, but the minister failed to clarify what legal advice had been sought, from whom and what it said. During the passage of the bill, she also failed to clarify whether she had consulted the UK Government on its attitude to such a provision. In short, the Scottish Government’s response was unsatisfactory and unconvincing.
Interestingly, section 2(1) as unamended—this may offer unexpected succour to Ken Macintosh and the minister—seems to refer to “individuals”, so presumably a family, which comprises individuals, could all present themselves, as individuals, and be addressed under the section. How the clarifying amendment creates an ultra vires status is bizarre.
It is equally important to understand that when people find themselves in such distressing situations they might find it difficult to think clearly or to describe what their circumstances are, so providing for a local authority review of decisions and a referral to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman are important safeguards. They also provide reassurance to the claimant. That is an important aspect of the legislation.
If claimants are entitled to reassurance—and they are—this Parliament and the taxpayer are entitled to be reassured that the system is working effectively and transparently. My party supported Margaret McDougall’s amendment 8 to provide for reports to be laid before the Parliament by the Scottish Government. That seemed to be an entirely reasonable requirement.
I am sorry, but you need to finish.
In short, the Scottish Government’s response explains why all the information is there, but the question remaining is why not put that into a report?
This is a good bill. It is important; it is welcome. It will make a difference and my party supports it.
16:46
We will shortly vote on the Welfare Funds (Scotland) Bill. I hope and expect the chamber to be unanimous in its support for the measure.
I thank all those whose speeches have brought us to this stage, the minister and her team, Welfare Reform Committee members and the third sector and anti-poverty organisations that offered their expertise. In particular, I want to thank, as Christina McKelvie did, Lynn Williams from SCVO, as well as Hanna McCulloch from CPAG, for their support, advice and forbearance. Perhaps most important of all, I thank the many individuals with direct experience of welfare who shared their personal life stories and their insights on being on the receiving end of the Scottish welfare fund.
This is not a particularly earth-shattering piece of legislation; nonetheless, it is an important one. I do not want to shatter Mark McDonald’s belief that it was somehow all invented by SNP ministers, but it was the Conservatives and the Liberals who decided to devolve the former DWP-administered social fund to local authorities in England and to pass on to us the power to decide how to provide the support in Scotland.
Ministers have, for the most part, done the right thing. They have topped up the fund and made the welcome change of moving from a system of loans to one of grants. There have also been a number of practical reforms, such as replacing the DWP administration with the service provided by our local authorities and establishing an independent appeals mechanism. It is fair to say that the appointment of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman to conduct the task was not greeted with unanimous approval, as Michael McMahon said, but there is some optimism that it will prove effective.
I thank the minister for responding to at least some of the stronger concerns raised about the bill. The Scottish Government’s original proposal to allow the administration of community care grants and crisis payments to be outsourced or privatised struck most observers as particularly ill-founded. I thank the minister for recognising the danger inherent in such an approach and the unacceptability of profiting from social misfortune even if, much to our amusement, her SNP colleagues on the committee seemed more dogmatically and unquestionably loyal to the Government’s original will than to the evidence before them.
There was not a huge amount of movement from the minister at stage 2, but I thank her for at least acknowledging some of the arguments and, for example, tempering the powers of the ombudsman to pursue claimants. I also add my thanks to her for accepting my amendment 6 on moving to a 24-hour deadline.
However, I also want to express my disappointment—my misgivings, perhaps—over our approach to the legislation. This is one of the first bills to lay the foundations of welfare in Scotland. We are about to get many more such welfare powers and Malcolm Chisholm talked about the significance of devolving more welfare powers to Scotland. Yes, there has been a nod in the right direction, but it is critical that we get the principles right from the start. I am not convinced that we have, even though the words “dignity” and “respect” are in the bill.
When it came to what that means in practice—when it came to offering welfare claimants some sort of say, choice or control over their own treatment, the minister balked at the prospect. Several members spoke about that, including Michael McMahon, Sandra White and Joan McAlpine; there was also a very interesting speech from Annabel Goldie. I will not rehearse the whole argument, but it demonstrates the two sides to this Administration.
I have no doubt that the minister wants to talk the language of progressivism, and I have no doubt that she and many of her party colleagues see themselves broadly as social democrats, but I worry that many of the actions of this Government are conservative with a small “c”. SNP ministers often seem more concerned about not rocking the boat—not upsetting people—than they are about making the radical change that is needed with the powers that they already have at their disposal. The minister and colleagues such as Kevin Stewart never seem happier than when they are turning an issue on which we can make a practical difference into a constitutional impasse featuring—by and large—the big bad bogeyman, Westminster.
In this case, my fear is that, by replicating the old social fund, we are doomed to replicate some of the faults of the current welfare system. We know that that system and, to a greater extent, the welfare reforms that were introduced by the Tories are overly judgmental. Inadvertently or otherwise, the current system can demean rather than empower, and I am not convinced that we have done enough to put the needs of individuals at the heart of our thinking.
I recognise that these are difficult decisions at a difficult time. When our welfare system is under attack, as it is from the current Conservative Government, in some ways our first duty is just to hold on—to defend what we have got and to stop the vulnerable being further undermined and subjected to political interference. However, by not fully grasping the importance of the principles that are at stake, by not adopting a more rights-based approach and by not looking at the fact that, whatever the original intent of welfare to tackle the big evils of want, squalor and poverty, in some ways it has become a sop to the fact that we now live almost permanently with long-term mass unemployment, we are almost accepting our willingness to live permanently with poverty in our midst. I do not believe that we are prepared to do that or that that is the point of welfare. It should be there to help people to get back on their feet. It should be there as a support. It should not be judgmental, nor should it stigmatise, yet I think that we are in danger of doing exactly that.
The bill is just the first of several new measures. I hope that the Scottish Government will reconsider its approach as we develop welfare powers in Scotland, and that we will all think again about what we are trying to achieve in the long term. We need to think about how we treat the vulnerable in our society, what status we give them and how we can best help them. On that note, I believe that we should support the bill, because of the benefit that it will bring to the people of Scotland.
16:52
I am grateful to members for their contributions to this afternoon’s debate. I have been encouraged that, across the Parliament, there has been recognition of the benefits of the statutory Scottish welfare funds. There have been disagreements about some of the detail of what should be in the bill and what might be more appropriate to include in regulations, but the support across the chamber for the principles of the bill is strong.
The bill is also supported by the third sector, organisations from which have worked with us to develop the bill. They will continue to work with us as we produce the regulations and the guidance.
I want to address a couple of the comments that have been made. I do not want to rehash the argument on families who are under exceptional pressure, but I want to make it absolutely clear that those families will be able to access the statutory Scottish welfare funds. That is critical. They can access those funds at the moment, and they will be able to access them in the future.
It has been argued that we should have just gone for it and taken the risk on the amendment regardless of whether the bill would have been competent. Part of me wanted to just say, “Aye, let’s go for it—let’s take them on,” but the issue that we are talking about is far too serious. We are talking about vulnerable people. If we do not get royal assent for the bill, we will not have statutory Scottish welfare funds. We will not have the 24-hour processing time that we have today agreed is the best way forward—that will be part of the statutory funds. I am not willing to take the risk that we might not be able to do any of the things that we want to do.
We want to help vulnerable people. I have given a commitment that families who are under exceptional pressure will not be excluded from the statutory welfare funds.
If legislation is required to allow the Scottish welfare fund to operate, how has it managed to operate for the past two years? Putting the fund on a statutory basis will provide some protections, but it will not change the rules or the criteria for applications, which have operated for two years.
No. At the moment, we have an interim fund that is discretionary; it is not statutory.
The criteria for the Scottish welfare fund are laid out according to what is in the section 30 order, which is why the bill has followed the section 30 order that gives the Scottish Parliament powers over aspects of welfare. I would like the Scottish Parliament to have all powers over welfare; if we did, we would not be in the position that we are in today. However, I have not only given a commitment that we will put the powers in regulation and guidance; I have also given a commitment that, when we get the powers recommended by the Smith commission, we will look at widening the scope of what is in the legislation to remove any vestige of doubt about whether we are caring for families under exceptional pressure.
I do not appreciate the message that Labour members are putting out today that in some way the Scottish Government does not care about families under exceptional pressure. This Government has made sure that the current fund has looked after people in exceptional circumstances and that the statutory fund will. [Interruption.]
Members must stop shouting.
On the point that Margaret McDougall made earlier about choice, I outlined clearly in the stage 3 debate some of the choices that exist for people when they apply for a community care grant. Margaret McDougall did not seem to distinguish between a community care grant and a crisis grant.
I have been very clear that, as we move forward with regulation, cash should be the default method for crisis grants, which might be cash neutral for local authorities. However, local authorities have told us very clearly and demonstrated to us just how much more they can get out of the welfare fund and how many more people they can assist by providing goods instead of cash for community care grants when we are talking about large sums of money.
The evidence that we have from the people who have benefited from the Scottish welfare fund is that they very much appreciate that service because it means that they can choose what furniture they want, for example, and decide on the date that it should be delivered—that is currently happening.
Does the minister agree that local authorities are underfunded to administer the welfare fund?
Margaret McDougall seems to be talking in circles: one minute she is asking us to take away the right of local authorities to be able to fund goods even though they are telling us that her proposal would cost too much, and then she says that local authorities are underfunded. I do not agree with her.
We provide £5 million for local authorities to administer the Scottish welfare fund. For me, it is very important when we have a limited budget that it is helping those it should help: vulnerable people in Scotland. We believe that they should be treated with dignity and respect at all times, which is why I was very willing to accept Kevin Stewart’s amendment to that effect at stage 2; and third sector organisations have been telling us that they are pleased that we have taken that forward. I would want to ensure that that is understood by Margaret McDougall, because I am not sure that she did understand it.
As we move on, where there are things that could improve in terms of how the fund operates, we need to work with local authorities—
One moment, minister. Can members who are coming into the chamber please do so quietly? It is disrespectful to the minister, who has taken part in the whole debate and been here throughout, that members are just walking in and not listening to her.
We need to work with local authorities to ensure that the people who need help are able to get it when they need it, and we are doing that through a structured programme of improvement work.
The Welfare Reform Committee made a number of recommendations in its stage 1 report that touched on the more operational aspects of the interim scheme. It is right that, among other things, the committee highlighted the length of application forms, processing times—which we have dealt with today—and local authority variation. We are continuing to work with local authorities to get all that right and to have the scheme implemented consistently across the country.
In case I run out of time, I will touch on the issues that members raised around an annual report and transparency. Members said that we are not being transparent about the scheme, but it is one of the most transparent schemes that we have ever had. Every quarter, 84 pages of information are provided publicly and they are scrutinised by members, third sector organisations and the Welfare Reform Committee. I think that that is the right way to work, because we can see at an early stage whether a pattern is developing on something that could be improved or changed, and deal with it at that stage.
I, for one, appreciate the kind of scrutiny that we are getting from the third sector and the Welfare Reform Committee, which is a continuous process. I do not see how putting all that together in a report once a year will make any difference. We should be acting when we know that a problem is happening, and we can do that on a quarterly basis instead of once a year, as has been proposed. There is no lack of transparency in the scheme. It is transparent and we will ensure that it remains so.
We are also working—
You need to end, minister.
Sorry—I did not realise the time. I will wind up.
The bill is a vital piece of legislation. It provides assistance to the most vulnerable people in Scotland and it highlights the stark contrast between how the UK Government has responded to the abolition of the social fund and the nationwide scheme that we are introducing here in Scotland. I hope that all members will get behind us to ensure that we get the scheme absolutely right for those who need it most.
Next
Decision Time