The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-14560, in the name of Hugh Henry, on the future delivery of social security in Scotland. I call Hugh Henry to speak to and move the motion on behalf of the Welfare Reform Committee. Mr Henry, you have eight minutes or so.
14:47
This is an unusual debate because we do not have a committee report to bring to the Parliament for it to consider, comment on and debate. We are looking for members’ ideas, because we face one of the biggest challenges that the Scottish Parliament and Government have had to face since the creation of the Parliament in 1999. Not only are we going to have to make decisions about taxation, but we will have to set up a new system of social security and welfare. That will certainly cause problems, but I think that it will also give us opportunities. We therefore genuinely want to hear what members have to say.
We have decided to use the term “social security” rather than “welfare” because welfare has become a somewhat abused and tarnished term over the years. The committee will produce a report relatively soon, but we are not examining whether the Smith commission proposals are a cohesive and sensible set of powers—that is not what we have been asked to do. We are not examining whether the powers in the Scotland Bill actually reflect what the Smith commission intended, nor are we arguing about what the Smith commission and the bill should have said. Many of those matters have been effectively dealt with by the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee, and I will leave that committee to take them forward.
We are looking at how the powers in the Scotland Bill should best be used, and we are looking for members’ ideas on that. For something as significant as a new social security system, it is important that we have consensus if possible. I realise that there will be arguments among the political parties about different aspects of benefits and what is or is not permissible, but I hope that we can agree on certain fundamental principles. We want not only to achieve some consensus on a social security system, but to give the system a degree of consistency, so that at each election it is not at risk of fundamental changes based on political whims.
We have heard from a range of organisations and people who have contributed to the committee’s evidence and certain themes come up time and again. The words “dignity” and “respect” have been used, and there is a burning desire to have those things at the heart of any system. We have heard that people want a person-centred system. There is huge frustration about bureaucracy and the fact that people often feel that they are treated as numbers, rather than as human beings. There is a desire to have a system that is based on personal and human rights and there is a huge demand to have passporting where possible, so that people do not have to make a multiplicity of claims at different stages in the system. Last but not least, we have heard that people want the claims system to be simple. It should try to use ordinary language that ordinary people can understand and it should avoid legalese and the language of bureaucracy. If people can identify other issues, they should please let us know.
I welcome Hugh Henry’s comments about making the language simpler. Would it be useful to make form filling easier? The forms that people have to fill in to claim some benefits can be up to 32 pages long. Will the committee look at form filling, as well as the legalese that is so often used in the application process?
That is very much what we mean by making the process simpler. Examples of form filling have been mentioned to the committee and, yes, where at all possible we want forms to be relatively short, straightforward, simple and easy to understand.
We will inherit disability living allowance and personal independence payments, which will be a huge responsibility. Currently the budget for the scheme is £1.5 billion a year and affects hundreds of thousands of people. How should it be run in the future? Yesterday, I met Roseanna Cunningham and Alex Neil and I know that in their respective areas of responsibility they are struggling to come up with specific ideas. There are huge challenges, but I hope that they will bring their ideas to the Parliament relatively soon. What should the eligibility criteria be for DLA and PIP?
Carers often feel—this is something that causes a lot of anguish and anger—that they are at the fag end of the process, that people do not consider them and that the carers allowance does not properly reflect their input. What should the definition of carers be? Should we change it? How should we operate the carers allowance? We have heard time and again in the Parliament just how much carers contribute through unpaid activity and effort.
One of the biggest areas of contention is likely to be the work programme and work choice. We have heard a lot of contentious evidence from people who believe that the work programme has let them down and that they have not been given due respect or proper support. I am not here to defend the providers of that programme, but to some extent they are there to deliver something that was set up by the Department for Work and Pensions, within the constraints that the DWP established. We will need to look at the criteria that we want to establish for delivery and at whether we will simply replace the national scheme or, as has been suggested, have regional variations to reflect local labour markets in different areas.
One particular area of contention with regard to the work programme relates to people with disabilities, who felt that they were being forced into a process in which there was no real intention of actually helping them into work and in which the bureaucracy was simply looking to tick a box to show that it was trying to make people look for work. We need to reflect on how we treat people not just with disabilities but with significant long-term illnesses and mental health problems.
I am aware of the time, Presiding Officer. May I continue?
Yes, I can give you time, Mr Henry.
Thank you.
Another question is: what should replace the work programme? I know that the Scottish Government has been in consultation with the private and voluntary sectors and that it is interested in hearing ideas about what a future scheme should look like. Given that we are talking about huge contracts of £100 million per year, should the scheme be delivered by private organisations or by a consortium of charities and voluntary organisations on a national or regional basis? Moreover, what about work choice, which we often ignore in relation to people with disabilities?
Some concerns were also expressed about the regulated social fund, even though it covers a relatively small area of activity. One such concern was funeral payments, and one of the biggest problems that was highlighted in that respect was the cost of funerals. Of course that is not necessarily an issue in which the committee has a locus, but I simply point out that families who are having to cope with a bereavement face a huge financial burden and we need to think about how any future funeral payments scheme should operate.
Questions were raised about the cold weather payment and the winter fuel payment, and the fact that they are two different schemes that operate in different ways. How should they work? Should they be universal? Should they be merged? Should people who no longer live in Scotland be entitled to receive them in future?
An issue for the future is universal credit, which will incorporate seven current benefits. We will not be in control of that, but there will be important powers with regard to its administration.
With regard to housing benefit, I was pleased to hear from the cabinet secretaries that where required it can and will be paid to the landlord. That is progress, and I hope that the minister will confirm that this afternoon. We also seek members’ views on whether housing benefit should be paid fortnightly rather than monthly and whether it could, where necessary, be paid to more than one householder.
Although top-up benefits in the form of tax credits have become a contentious issue in the past week or two, I note that we will have the ability to top up devolved benefits. Of course, we will then be required to find the money for that, which will be a challenge for this Parliament and the Scottish Government. Should we be looking at particular groups beyond those who are already in receipt of tax credits? How will we use our budget? Who will we help, and in what circumstances will we help them?
Finally, on the key issue of delivery, are we going to have a national system or a local system? Should we have a national system with local delivery? If so, who should be the local delivery agents? Again, we have heard conflicting views on that, some suspicion of some of the existing local agencies and an aspiration to avoid a postcode lottery. People want consistency, but they also want a more personalised decision-making process that might well require local input.
How do we help people in the move from a Westminster-based to a Scotland-based system? Given that people will undoubtedly be affected as a result, we will need to look at transition systems. We do not have a final view and welcome any comments.
Those are some of the issues that we have been looking at and that the Scottish Government must contend with. We all have an opportunity to help create something that is entirely new and that we hope will work well for the benefit of the people whom we represent.
I move,
That the Parliament notes that, once the Scotland Bill becomes an Act, the responsibility for the delivery of a range of social security powers will pass to the Parliament, including disability living allowance, personal independence payments, carers allowance, the Work Programme and the Regulated Social Fund, as well as some aspects of universal credit and top-up funds; further notes that the Welfare Reform Committee is undertaking an inquiry into the future delivery of social security in Scotland, and would welcome contributions from members on what they consider are the important principles and practical aspects of a new Scottish social security system.
15:00
I welcome the opportunity to take part in this important debate.
I thank the Welfare Reform Committee for today’s motion and for the work that it has taken forward over the past few years. The Scottish Government is pleased to work with the committee and hopes that we can continue to do so in the journey ahead.
I want to make it clear to Parliament that the Scottish Government will always use the powers that we have to protect and benefit the people of Scotland. We are also very clear about ensuring that the necessary financial arrangements are in place alongside the mechanisms to deliver the new powers.
As we all know, the United Kingdom Government’s ideologically driven programme of welfare reform has been near the top of the political and news agendas in Scotland for large parts of the past five years, and with good reason.
We strongly support the committee’s endorsement of the House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee’s call for a full and independent review of the sanctions system. We also welcome its recommendations that the UK Government publish a tracking study to examine the cost of sanctions, that it revise the sanctions appeals process and that it allow more discretion for DWP staff in dealing with vulnerable claimants who are at risk of being sanctioned. Many other recommendations have been made to the UK Government; we fully support their spirit and content.
It remains our ambition to develop a distinctly Scottish approach to the powers over social security that have been promised by the Smith commission and through the Scotland Bill. To develop that approach, we are listening carefully to the views of people who receive the benefits that are to be devolved, and to the organisations that support and represent them. I know that the committee has also worked closely with many of those people and organisations. The organisations will be pleased that the Welfare Reform Committee has brought delivery of social security to the chamber today, and that their views are being heard. I welcome the fact that the committee wants to hear from members about the principles and practicalities that we will want in a new Scottish social security system.
We, like many others, remain committed to developing a Scottish approach to social security, which has at its heart a set of principles and values. Our vision is of an approach that is, as Hugh Henry said, person centred and treats people with dignity and respect, so we look forward to working co-operatively with the committee and other stakeholders in offering a united front against austerity measures and in successfully bringing the new social security powers to this Parliament.
We will continue to work closely with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the national health service and others across civic Scotland to understand the links between the benefits that are being devolved and existing services, because we know that we cannot deliver our aspirations alone: we need to take others with us and there must be a joint approach.
Parliament will be aware that we recently published an update paper on what we have learned from our engagement. That was a valuable exercise for us, and it demonstrates our commitment to listening to the people who will be directly affected by the new powers. It is worth reflecting on what we have heard, because it chimes with evidence that was heard by the Welfare Reform Committee.
On disability, as Hugh Henry and the committee did, we have heard about the problems that have been caused by delays in the assessment and decision process for the new personal independence payment, and the impact that the delays are having on vulnerable people. We are working with stakeholders on how assessments can be improved. John Wilson mentioned the need for a simplified system: we all want the system to be easier to understand, and to use language that people can understand.
I know that the minister has taken on board the point about making the system simpler, but many of my constituents who have benefits difficulties also have literacy issues. How do we get around the fact that, regardless of how simple the forms are, literacy problems mean that those people will have problems filling them in?
John Wilson has made a very good point. We are looking at that and discussing the matter with stakeholders. It is about the help, support and assistance that we give to people who are unable to fill in forms on their own. As John Wilson said, no matter how simple the form is, it can be difficult for some people to fill it in. We must ensure that the social security system is accessible and that the right support is in place to ensure that people can access the benefits to which they are entitled.
We have shown that we want to take a fairer approach by, for example, abolishing the 84-day rule that penalises families of severely disabled children by removing disability living allowance and carers allowance if their child is hospitalised for a lengthy period.
We have also heard from a number of parties on the issues that carers face. The First Minister’s recent comments about beginning to raise the carers allowance to the level of jobseekers allowance reflects the importance of the role that carers play on behalf of society in taking care of the people who need them and rely on them.
We have made it clear that we will use the flexibilities around universal credit that the Scotland Bill will allow us—and to which Hugh Henry referred—to deliver a service that is more suited to the particular needs of Scotland. That includes flexibility in respect of frequency of payments to people who make claims, and payment of the housing costs element direct to social landlords, on which we have already given our commitment. It is important that we will also abolish, in effect, the hated and pernicious bedroom tax. As we heard this morning, and as we have seen in the newspapers, there are areas of Scotland where that tax has hit badly. This Government is proud of fully mitigating the bedroom tax and investing £90 million to do so.
There have been more than 200 responses to the consultation on the work programme and work choice. It is clear that the work programme is not working for those who are most in need. In developing and implementing devolved employment support services from 2017, we intend to focus on the people who are not well supported in the current DWP programmes. The Cabinet Secretary for Fair Work, Skills and Training will respond to the consultation shortly and will make clear the ambitions and the direction of travel for delivery by 2017.
I would, of course, have preferred that we were receiving powers over all employment support programmes. I see no reason why we must wait 12 months before stepping in to help someone who is unemployed. That is an example of the qualifications and constraints that are imposed on the social security provisions of the bill, including those that deal with benefit sanctions.
We have heard a range of views about what should be done when the powers relating to the regulated social fund are devolved. The cabinet secretary recently commissioned a report to look at ways of relieving the financial burden and debt that bereaved relatives and friends face when organising a funeral, and to come up with a series of recommendations to address the rising costs of funerals. That report will inform the work that is being carried out on how funeral payments can be delivered better. It is clear that the current system is not working.
As the Scotland Bill goes forward, we are pleased that discussions between the UK Government and the Scottish Government have borne some fruit. The UK Government has admitted that the bill, as introduced, did not deliver on the recommendations of the Smith commission—as the Scottish Government has been saying for over a year. The bill now contains a power to create new benefits, which we welcome because it is something that we have pushed for for some time. However, devolving existing powers and the funding that goes to resource them, which we already pay for through our taxation, would always have been a better solution. Instead, we are left with a sticking-plaster approach to alleviating the Tory cuts.
My intervention is not on any specific point that the minister has made, but on the general shape of the new system, to which Mr Henry alluded. We are going to be responsible for about £2.7 billion of welfare expenditure. Does the minister envisage a specific shape for its delivery—for example, a minister with responsibility for welfare and a department to deal with that—and has any thought been given by the Scottish Government to what should come from the national level and what might be better delivered at local level?
Those are the very points on which we are deliberating and consulting. The Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Communities and Pensioners’ Rights has said that he would, in the next parliamentary session, introduce a social security bill. That might answer some of Annabel Goldie’s questions.
Hugh Henry said that the committee prefers the term “social security” to “welfare”. I, too, prefer that term. In fact, I might be the first and last minister to have “welfare” in her title. The common perception of “welfare” is not a fitting description of what people who are in receipt of benefits experience. We want an approach to social security that supports people and which treats people who are entitled to benefits with fairness and dignity. I know that much of civic Scotland and many members across the chamber feel the same way.
Members may be aware that the Scottish Government has used the term “social security” for some time. In the recently published stocktake paper that I mentioned, we specifically highlight that the powers that we are receiving are over social security, rather than over welfare.
We value the committee’s work, and appreciate the time and effort that so many stakeholders have put into providing both the committee and the Government with information, including ideas on how we would want the social security system to be delivered in Scotland. We are pleased that the issues coming through the committee’s inquiry are similar to those that are being picked up by the Scottish Government in our consultations.
I look forward to members’ speeches.
15:11
I, too, welcome the debate. As Hugh Henry said, it is a bit unusual that there is no report to debate and that we are instead being asked for our views on an issue. Annabel Goldie asked about the shape of the new system. We need to have an anti-poverty strategy. The significant powers that we are getting need to be used as part of that strategy and to be joined up with a range of policies. Often what is lacking at UK and Scottish levels is joined-up government with clear objectives. A clear objective for Scotland must be to tackle poverty.
I have supported the Cottage Family Centre in Kirkcaldy for many years. In 2012, it delivered 100 food hampers for needy children. Last year, the figure was 500 and this year it is expected to be more than 800. Last year, it gave 90 children warm coats for the winter; this year, it has already received more than 250 requests. In Fife, 24 per cent of the population are deemed to be in poverty and in some of the poorest communities, the figure is as much as 36 per cent. That is a picture not just of Fife, but of communities across Scotland. Our objective must be to work out how to tackle that situation.
I also came across a YouGov poll that found that people think on average that 40 per cent of the welfare state budget goes to registered unemployed people. That, of course, is a myth: only 1.5 per cent of that budget goes to the registered unemployed—8 per cent if we include disabled people and single parents who stay at home with their children.
An astonishing two thirds of British children who are growing up in poverty live in a family in which at least one adult works, and in Scotland 59 per cent of those children are in working families in which the main breadwinner works all the hours that he or she can. It is a complete myth that the majority of poor children grow up in families that lack the desire to work. The hard evidence is that they would work far more hours if they were able to do so.
We must ensure that the joined-up policies that we create also focus on how we can support people into work. At this time of the year, although the jobs may not be the best, people often come off benefits to go into work. There will be seasonal jobs in Amazon in my constituency, for example. Taking such jobs totally mucks up people’s benefits. They then find themselves in difficult situations when they try to get back on to benefits. We need to address those issues.
As Hugh Henry and the minister said, there is an opportunity to engage and involve organisations, groups and individuals throughout Scotland in deciding what the new social security system should look like. One such group is Enable Scotland, which has, along with a number of other organisations, sent in a briefing and has been talking to the committee. It says that there are key opportunities as we move forward, such as
“The ability to amend the criteria to ensure that the main working age disability benefit is fit for purpose”
and
“The ability to improve the claim and decision making processes for disability benefits to improve accuracy of decision making, reduce administrative and assessment costs and ensure that claimants are treated with respect at all stages of the process”.
John Wilson asked about making it easier to fill in forms, but the question is about being treated with respect and being supported. We should have joined-up working at every level, involving local government. How do we support people who make claims, often for the first time, and find the process to be difficult?
Enable also mentions
“The ability to remove the suspension of the payability of disability benefits when a claimant has been in hospital for 28 days”.
There are a lot of ideas and views that we need to take on board as we move forward. However, Enable also talks about some of the challenges, and states:
“The full details of the fiscal framework for further devolution are not yet known. The finer details of this will have a significant impact on the ability to use any new powers”.
I make to the minister an important point that she needs to reflect back to the Government: there seem to be private discussions—secret discussions—between Mr Mundell and Mr Swinney about the fiscal framework. It is important that we have more transparency about those discussions.
At the recent Finance Committee debate on the fiscal framework, Mr Swinney said explicitly to representatives of the Labour Party, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats that he is more than happy to receive correspondence from them outlining the areas of the fiscal framework discussions about which they wish to learn more. Will Mr Rowley confirm whether the Labour Party has corresponded with Mr Swinney to that effect?
I have certainly met Mr Swinney and made the point to him that it is difficult to comment on something about which we are not sure. Mr Swinney says that the fiscal framework is not a good deal for Scotland. I assume that no member would want to sign up to a bad deal for Scotland, or would sign up for a pig in a poke, but if the discussions remain private, confidential and secret between Mr Swinney and Mr Mundell, it is difficult to comment.
Will Alex Rowley give way?
I want to make progress.
On in-work poverty, there is a new category of poor in Scotland: in the 21st century, young people in their 20s, including young couples, whose income from work is low and stagnating when their rents and living costs are high, fall into the poverty gap. I point out that 30 per cent of working men in their 20s and 35 per cent of working women in their 20s earn less than the living wage.
I draw attention to a pamphlet that Jayne Baxter MSP has circulated. It makes the case for the living wage. Parliament has powers to do more on that, so we should certainly consider what progress we can make. I welcome it when companies announce that they want to be living-wage employers, but we need to consider the public sector. There is a mass of people in the care sector, for example; 80 per cent of them are in the private sector and the majority of them work for the minimum wage. We need to address that.
Alongside that, we need to address the Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer’s attack on tax credits, which will drive more and more families in Scotland into poverty. We in Parliament need to unite not only to fight those cuts but to say that, if they go ahead—
Will Alex Rowley give way?
The member is coming to a close.
I am sorry. I do not have time.
If the cuts to tax credits go ahead, we should unite and use the resources and powers that are coming to the Parliament to ensure that no one is worse off and suffers as a result.
I turn quickly to the work programme. We need to recognise that many people in Scotland are far removed from the labour market. The best way to support them at local level is through local government. The work programme needs to be devolved. If it is devolved, we can be more effective.
My main point is that we need joined-up government, a joined-up approach and an all-out attack on poverty and inequality in Scotland.
15:20
This is a debate that I am very glad to be involved in. It is on a subject on which many of us have been involved in some very heated discussions of late and over recent years, but I welcome the tone in which it was introduced today, and I hope that at the end of the afternoon we will have a more constructive outcome than we have experienced in previous debates.
In welcoming the tone in which the debate was introduced, I acknowledge the remarks that the convener of the Welfare Reform Committee made about the terms that we use to cover the subjects that we discuss. We have a huge opportunity in that regard, because language costs nothing. If we get the language right, we can achieve a great deal. If we can gather around a change in the language and the terms that we use, we can perhaps begin the process of building back into the system the respect that, unfortunately, research indicates has all too often dropped out of it.
The great challenge that we face in talking about the future delivery of welfare—or, I should say, social security; I had better get that right—is that we do not have a great deal of time on our side. The likelihood is that we will be in a position to begin introducing the measures that are available to us under the new powers as early as May 2017. That means that, by the time we go into the election in May 2016, we will have had to discuss policy and its implementation. We are right up against a deadline to start talking about how we will deliver the new powers.
Many of the lessons on how the new powers will be delivered come from the experience that we have already had. Over recent years, one or two aspects of welfare have been devolved, and that gives us something to look at. I am thinking, in particular, of the Scottish welfare fund, which is delivered in the form of crisis grants and community care grants. The devolution of that funding at rather short notice came as a surprise to many. In England, it was passed to local authorities, and in Scotland it became the responsibility of the Scottish Government. The decision was then taken to pass it on to local authorities. We had an opportunity to look at how the interim scheme worked, after which we brought in a final scheme that delivered the funding more effectively.
The Scottish welfare fund has taught us two things. First, there is something to be said for doing things differently in different areas. Different local authorities found different ways of doing things, whether by delivering benefits in cash or kind, or by providing the opportunity to get those benefits in person or over the internet. The fact that success was achieved in different ways in different areas is a lesson for the future.
Secondly, by the time the scheme was properly up and running and demand levels had stabilised, it became clear that local authorities were an effective way of delivering such support. The problem was that, because of the size of the scheme and the number of staff who were required in local authority areas, too much of the money that was made available through the scheme was going on administration. The lesson there is that if local authority staff can administer a scheme effectively but inefficiently in cash terms, one way of recovering that resource is to give those staff more to do so that they can operate more efficiently.
What we need are systems to provide support that are easy to use and easy to understand, as the minister said, but also predictable and familiar. The final lesson that we got from the devolution of the Scottish welfare fund was that many people who had previously relied on it believed that it had simply been abolished and were unaware that the fund was still available in a different form. That is one of the reasons why uptake was so poor in the first year.
The major changes—the change to universal credit and the change to personal independence payments—are already controversial. They are part of the welfare reform programme that is being driven from the south and which has been attacked for many reasons, not least political ones. However, they will form the foundations of the welfare system that we will build on in Scotland.
I am delighted that changes have been made that will allow certain flexibilities in universal credit. If we in Scotland feel that it is more appropriate to pay more frequently than once a month and to pay housing benefit directly to landlords, we should have the opportunity to do that. However, although it is vital that we have the power to make direct payments to landlords and use it where it is required, I do not believe that the system should be abused as it has been in the past. Those who can manage their own affairs and have demonstrated that should be allowed to do so.
Tax credits have risen to the top of the agenda in recent weeks. It is clear from statements that David Mundell has made that there is the opportunity to top up under the systems that will be devolved by the Scotland Bill. There are certain difficulties with topping up benefits where entitlement does not exist, but those problems can be dealt with through the discussions that are taking place about the fiscal framework.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, thank you.
Ministers of both Governments will have to rise to that challenge, but the Secretary of State for Scotland is certainly keen to find a solution to that problem.
On the carers allowance being uprated to match the jobseekers allowance, that is one area in which Ruth Davidson managed to get in just ahead of the minister. She committed the Conservatives to that policy before it was announced at the Scottish National Party conference.
We face many challenges. Conservative MSPs are closely related to the Government that is driving part of the agenda from the south, but we also believe that it is right to devolve the powers that are being devolved, and we want them to be used effectively. The big challenge is to get to the bottom line—if the Government is committed to increasing spend, we need to know where that money will come from.
We move to the open debate. Speeches should be six minutes or so, please.
15:27
The Tory social security reforms are wreaking havoc for many of our most vulnerable people. During my time on the Welfare Reform Committee, we have heard stories that have frustrated and angered me from affected people. During a recent session in which we looked at the work programme, we heard from Donna, who said,
“The biggest thing for me about the Work Programme has been the advisers. The first one I had was terrible. I had 3 meetings with him and he made me greet twice. He was mean and a bit of a bully. It’s bad because all this takes place in an open plan office, so everyone can see you greeting”,
and from Diane, who said,
“Throughout the whole of my engagement with the work program I have lived in fear of sanctions. This has also not been helpful to my health.”
People are certainly not being treated with the dignity and respect that they deserve, and that is just not good enough. I was pleased that, when we passed the Scottish welfare fund legislation, the Parliament accepted an amendment that I lodged on dignity and respect. I hope that we build that into every single piece of social security legislation that the Parliament deals with in future.
We will soon have competence over the work programme. We must ensure that we follow the respect agenda in everything that we do, but it is galling that Westminster will retain powers over sanctions. That may blow a hole in our ability to ensure that folk are treated fairly and respectfully.
It would be so much better if all aspects of conditionality were devolved. Many organisations share my view on that point. Tanya Gilchrist of the Shaw Trust said:
“I certainly think that it will cause confusion. We are talking about people who are already dissatisfied with the current service delivery ... If we have reserved and devolved rules potentially affecting such people, that could ultimately cause confusion and more dissatisfaction.”
Kate Still of Employment Support Scotland said:
“We advocated the devolution to Scotland of Jobcentre Plus and all the related levers, because we think that that would work better.”—[Official Report, Welfare Reform Committee, 3 November 2015; c 17.]
Even with those fetters, we must ensure that our work programme takes full consideration of individuals and their circumstances.
It is galling that the access to work programme, which helps disabled people to get the equipment that they need to get into work, is not being devolved. I do not understand the logic of that decision, although to be honest many of the decisions that have been taken on what and what not to devolve defy logic.
We have heard from Labour and, not many minutes ago, from Mr Johnstone about tax credits. This week in the House of Commons, an SNP amendment to the Scotland Bill that sought to devolve all powers over tax credits and which, if passed, would have transferred to the Scottish Parliament the powers over all the aspects and all the resources, was defeated by 477 votes to 56, which was a majority of 421. The Labour Party chose to go through the lobbies with the Conservatives to allow them to retain the powers over tax credits.
Will the member take an intervention?
Not at the moment.
It seems that the Labour Party is willing to mitigate, or wants us to mitigate, the changes to tax credits, but it is unwilling for the Parliament to take control over the powers.
Will Kevin Stewart give way?
I will give Mr Macdonald the opportunity to tell us why the Labour Party took the somewhat bizarre decision to walk through the lobbies with the Tories on Monday.
Does Mr Stewart believe that the Parliament should use the powers that we will have to mitigate fully the impact of cuts to tax credits?
I believe that the Parliament should use all the powers at its disposal.
The Labour Party seems to think that we will be able to mitigate the effects of the tax credit cuts, but it has not taken account of the difficulties that there might be. Professor Alan Trench, of the Institute for Public Policy Research, who appeared before the Welfare Reform Committee this week, said:
“I would take the view that legally there is a power within the framework of the bill to top up tax credits, but the practical difficulties that Professor Spicker and David Eiser started to elaborate seem to me to make it hugely difficult, if not impossible, to accomplish that.”
Will Kevin Stewart take an intervention?
David Eiser, a research fellow from the University of Stirling, who appeared the same day—
Will the member give way?
Miss Goldie, I do not think that Mr Stewart is giving way.
David Eiser said:
“it is worth saying that there is of course a timing issue in that the tax credits cuts will start to happen before the ... powers come to Scotland.”
He continued:
“It is not clear to me from the way in which the legislation is set out to what extent the Scottish Government will be able to top up the eligible rates only, with the work allowance and the taper still being reserved.”—[Official Report, Welfare Reform Committee, 10 November 2015; c 28, 27.]
Will Mr Stewart let me tell him?
I will take an intervention from Miss Goldie in a little while if she waits, because I want to finish this point.
Instead of our having to face those problems about whether we can mitigate, it would have been far easier for the Labour members to abandon their better together friends in the Tories and to have gone through the lobbies with us to try to get the powers devolved to this place.
I will take an intervention from Baroness Goldie, who can maybe tell us why she voted in the House of Lords for tax credit cuts.
Does Mr Stewart accept that the Scotland Bill will allow the topping up of existing benefits, the creation of new benefits in all areas of devolved competence and of course the flexibility of using income tax bands? The finance minister in the Scottish Government can, if he wants to, apply a nil band or a reduced band. How would Mr Stewart deploy those measures to address the issue that he has identified?
I would say that that was a speech rather than an intervention, Presiding Officer.
Baroness Goldie needs to have a look at what was said at the Welfare Reform Committee this week, because Professor Paul Spicker said:
“In political and economic terms, it might be exceedingly difficult for Scotland to vary the terms on which benefits are delivered.”—[Official Report, Welfare Reform Committee, 10 November 2015; c 25.]
Some folks seem to think that the powers that we are getting are the panacea to almost everything. That is not the case; the hole was blown in that this week by the academics who appeared in front of the Welfare Reform Committee. The hole has also been punched through by many others who are very wary about what is about to happen.
We are discussing this today without even knowing what the resource background to it will be. As has been pointed out, the fiscal framework has not been agreed, so we may be being sold a pig in a poke. That is the reality. Even if we wanted to top up benefits and mitigate the effects of benefit changes, there are barriers, and there will be resource barriers as well, as Mr Eiser pointed out.
Will the member give way?
I will take Mr Rowley’s intervention if I have time, Presiding Officer.
Mr Stewart, you are well over time. It will need to be extremely short, Mr Rowley.
That is what the SNP said about the bedroom tax; you said that we could not mitigate the bedroom tax. Two weeks ago, you said that we could not use the powers to mitigate the tax credits and now we are. Would you agree that we need transparency around the fiscal framework?
We had difficulties in mitigating the bedroom tax and we had to get additional powers to do so. How easy is it going to be to get additional powers to deal with some of the flaws that seem to be in the Scotland Bill?
An intergovernmental negotiation is currently going on to agree the fiscal framework. You and others have been told by Mr Swinney that you can talk to him about any aspects of that. I am quite sure that he will listen to anyone who has any view on how we can get the best possible deal for Scotland out of that negotiation. However, I have to say that I am utterly sceptical and it would have been best if we had those powers.
Before we move on, can I remind members to speak through the chair? Also, if members wish to make interventions, can they ensure that their microphones are facing in the right direction?
15:37
I thought that we had a settled, albeit inadequate, position on the bedroom tax from the First Minister at First Minister’s questions last week, but we now have what I think must be about the 10th position on tax credits from the SNP in 10 days. Today’s debate should not be dominated by that, because we know that that debate will continue for many months to come.
In general, I welcome the fact that more than £2.5 billion of social security responsibility will come to Scotland. While I may personally have wanted a bit more to come to Scotland, I think that everybody will recognise that the Smith recommendations on social security, and indeed on other matters, have now been substantially delivered.
We have to give credit to the United Kingdom Government for the changes that it made on Monday, the main ones being the introduction of new devolved benefits and the ability to top up reserved benefits. There were other changes, too—I will not list them all, but they include the removal of the restrictive definition in relation to carers allowance. I think that all that has been welcomed by most members of the SNP in other contexts.
Of course, there was also some disappointment. Consideration by the House of Lords is still to come, so we can look to Baroness Goldie if we want further changes. There was disappointment that the restrictive definition in relation to disability benefits was not changed, so there is still scope there. There was also disappointment that there was no amendment to the employment programme provisions, which means that, although the administration of programmes is being devolved, problems remain to do with access and the interrelationship with the sanctions regime.
As the convener of the Welfare Reform Committee, Hugh Henry, said, the committee heard from a range of organisations. I was pleased to read some of their submissions, although I could not read them all, because such a large number of organisations are interested in the subject.
Hugh Henry summarised some of the key principles that emerged from the submissions: we need a system that is based on personal and human rights; there should be passporting rather than a multiplicity of claims; the system should be simple; and, crucially, there should be a person-centred system with dignity and respect at its heart.
In that regard, I was interested to see the Poverty Alliance’s comment that dignity and choice are closely related. As a criticism of something that the Scottish Government has done already, it said:
“We have seen this in the delivery of the Scottish Welfare Fund with people feeling that they have been stigmatised by the lack of choice in how grants are awarded”.
That of course is a reference to vouchers being given out, rather than cash.
Shelter was also enthusiastic about the principles. I do not have time to quote what Shelter said, but it felt that there were great opportunities to embed the principles of dignity, respect and so on in Scotland’s housing system. I hope that that approach will be reflected in the abolition of the bedroom tax very soon after the powers are acquired.
There were lots of positive suggestions from different organisations—even from those that wanted more powers. For example, the Scottish Association for Mental Health wanted the access to work programme to be devolved as part of the employment programmes. SAMH also made the interesting point that more individuals with mental health problems should be referred to the work choice programme, which will be devolved, pointing out that that would allow
“a greater number of people with disabilities to access the specialist support they require”.
The issue of disability featured prominently in the submissions, given that substantial powers over disability benefits are being devolved. One Parent Families Scotland made the interesting point that control over disability benefits should be at the national level, rather than at the local level. It was concerned about the “erosion of entitlement”, among other matters. That is one interesting issue that we will have to debate. Sometimes it is better if things are local, but One Parent Families is arguing for the national administration of disability benefits.
As ever, Inclusion Scotland made interesting comments. Some of its demands involve extra money, and that is one thing that we will have to consider, but many of its suggestions do not need more money. For example, it said that
“staff administering the new disability benefits system in Scotland”
should have customer-focused
“Disability Equality Training.”
It added that face-to-face assessments should become less common, and suggests that the benefit should be renamed “Social Participation Benefit”. I found all those suggestions interesting, and I am sure that we will reflect on them.
Similarly, the Child Poverty Action Group made many suggestions about the transition to PIP. For example, it said that we should
“Dramatically reduce the use of face-to-face assessment”
and
“Ensure that all assessments are performed by an appropriately qualified specialist.”
There are a lot of really useful suggestions that do not have financial implications, as well as suggestions that do.
I will move on, although I will stick with the Child Poverty Action Group. We forget that lots of smaller benefits, such as maternity grants, will be devolved. CPAG proposes that we should
“Link their delivery with health services”,
and suggests that
“The delivery of maternity grants should be automated as far as possible”.
As we would expect, Marie Curie Cancer Care emphasises that all devolved benefits
“must include a system of fast tracking for those ... with a terminal illness, and their carers”.
There are lots of suggestions for us to reflect on.
I will end with some final concerns. One Parent Families Scotland was concerned that any additional carers benefit, such as that announced by the Scottish Government, might be taken into account in calculating entitlement to means-tested benefits. That relates to the more general point that John Swinney made in his letter to the Secretary of State for Scotland. We still need some clarity about that issue, because we do not want the result of any extra spending from the Scottish Government’s budget to be deductions made in other ways from the income of the individuals who receive that money. That is a very important point.
As Kevin Stewart pointed out, we have to set all this in the context of the size of the budget. There two issues here. This is not just about the amount of money that is transferred in 2017, which I think will be relatively simple to calculate. For example, I presume that, whatever percentage of the DLA/PIP budget we have in 2017, that money will be transferred, with an equivalent reduction made to our grant.
However, what happens subsequently is crucial. What will the mechanism be for adjusting the budget? I presume that that will be discussed as part of the fiscal framework. We have a more-or-less agreed decision on taxation and on indexing for income tax—there is still some controversy about that, but there is general agreement about the way forward. There is no such agreement on the way forward for adjusting the welfare budget. David Bell made an interesting point in his submission when he said that
“if the indexation mechanism takes account of Scotland’s growing share of the elderly population, then the risk that claims in Scotland could only be funded by diverting funds from other priorities would be avoided.”
That is one argument that the Scottish Government should perhaps be making.
That serves as a reminder that Scotland’s growing share of the elderly population featured prominently in debates during the independence referendum. I do not want to spoil the tone of the debate but we should remind ourselves that, when Kevin Stewart assumes that full devolution—I presume that he means full devolution—of the social security system and, beyond that, independence would suddenly solve all those problems and be a panacea, that is where we fundamentally disagree.
Please close, Mr Chisholm.
I do not want to rerun the arguments of the referendum but, for some of us, the main objection to independence was that the financial situation in relation to social security and other issues would be worse, although no doubt we might make more enlightened decisions.
I have a bit of time in hand but perhaps not as much as three minutes for each member.
15:46
As a member of the Welfare Reform Committee, I find one fact inescapable: the austerity agenda comes at the cost of the impact on the most deserving and most vulnerable in our society. All the supposed reforms are specifically designed to cut the already limited support that is available to people who, for a range of reasons, find themselves not fit for work, unable to take on full-time employment, struggling on zero-hours contracts or unable to find any work that, either medically or mentally, they can take on.
People have come to the committee and shared their personal stories. I pay tribute to all those who have shown bravery in sharing their stories. It is not an easy thing to do in any circumstance, never mind in front of a committee of this Parliament. In the main, each and every one of them has asked for one thing: a decent standard of living. Instead of cutting benefits, especially in-work benefits, perhaps the chancellor should consider the recent announcement in Canada of a pilot basic income supplement—it is being called a social safety net—to stop families falling further into poverty. The main focus of that approach—the agreed criteria—is that people need secure and safe housing, food and a reasonable standard of living.
The chancellor has declared that, in his spending review on 25 November, he will deliver his intentions. Although the action date has shifted a bit, we should be under no illusion about what lies ahead. Adding to the confusion are all the complex issues around the Scotland Bill—the 200 amendments, all the amendments from SNP MPs that were not supported and the UK Government’s refusal to admit any serious change that might bring the devolution of welfare powers to Scotland any nearer. Most telling of all, the bill will allow us to top up existing benefits but not to control the system. When people have already had benefits withdrawn, we need clarity about what we can do and whether any of the top-ups that we give will be clawed back. We do not have that clarity—and in April next year, 80,000 Scottish families will lose benefits.
The no-detriment clause is an on-going problem. The Scottish Government’s budget will continue to be reduced by Westminster and we will continue to be denied the opportunity to raise any revenue of our own without that being clawed back by the Treasury. The fiscal framework needs to work for Scotland. I hope that the cabinet secretary, John Swinney, is working extremely hard—I am sure that he is—to ensure that we get the framework that we need in Scotland.
Within the current framework, the Scottish Government is achieving a great deal. It is helping to mitigate the bedroom tax and making provision through the Scottish welfare fund and emergency payments to families in dire need. Without that support, can people imagine what the situation would be like for those families? It would be even more critical than it is now. That is what we see at our committee every single week.
We may get the power to vary taxes but we will not have the power to define them. Taxes will not be devolved. If we raise additional revenues in Scotland, they will simply be deducted from the block grant, which, of course, continues to be drastically reduced every year. That is what “no detriment” actually means to us.
The Scottish Government needs to be given the ability to raise revenues independently and without interference from the Treasury. We know that some income tax is being devolved, but that is a very blunt instrument with which to deal with poverty in our society today.
At the Welfare Reform Committee meeting on Tuesday, Professor Alan Trench from the Institute for Public Policy Research pointed out that the whole situation is totally opaque and incoherent. That the system is incoherent is another theme that we have heard from everyone who has given evidence to the committee. They call it the “ragged edges” of the system—that is not the way to build a system.
Even with the power to top up benefits, the logistics of doing so are complex and very expensive. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs would charge us just under £10 for every transaction, and each application could require at least four transactions a year. The additional costs would be massive. With 349,000 Scottish families who receive tax credits, the transaction tax would cost £140 million a year. I do not know about my colleagues in the chamber but I would rather that that money was spent on the front line—on people—and not on a transaction tax.
We need to identify ways in which we can bring about cultural change as well—a cultural change that stops people being written off as “scroungers”, “lazy” or “wasters”. We need a system that puts dignity and respect at its heart. I know that this will be true for the constituents of many of my colleagues as well, but for a lot of my constituents the rules and priorities have suddenly been changed, through no fault of their own. Such things could happen to any of us. None of us is immune from a change in circumstances.
When we build a new social security system for Scotland, will we force those who already have long-term or even terminal conditions to go through mandatory reassessment? I hope not. What about creating a system that strives for better first decisions that are based on good assessments, so that we stop the merry-go-round of appeals? Surely that is better than stripping people of their dignity and throwing them into a system that shows them no respect, as happens currently.
What about a key worker system that allows for one point of contact—a form-filling point of contact to ensure that individuals get the correct support? Surely doing that first is the best way to do it?
When it comes to employment, why is the work programme being contracted out to the private sector? Making huge profits on the back of individuals who are furthest away from the job market is simply not acceptable. Surely the work programme would be better handled by a Scottish Government agency, such as Skills Development Scotland, supported by our brilliant third sector organisations? They know the employment landscape.
As the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations pointed out in its submission to the committee,
“we need to put people at the heart of employability support ... Paid employment remains one of the best ways in which people can take control over their lives. But solely focusing on getting people into jobs is a mistake.”
The SCVO believes that
“We need to value all forms of contribution, not just jobs, and to tailor support to each citizen’s capabilities and offer. This includes their role as parents/carers, volunteers, learners or activists”.
The primary goal of employability support should not simply be how we can get people into paid work—any kind of paid work—as soon as possible. We need to give them good, valuable paid work.
With Westminster’s austerity agenda paramount, any human or compassionate interest is rejected. We can make the change here as a society and as a community. We are in a very dangerous and unhealthy position, and I hope that all members in the chamber do not buy the Westminster agenda but instead bring about a system that puts people at its heart and gives them not just rights and responsibilities but the opportunity to have that one thing that people have asked us to give them—a decent standard of living.
15:54
I should declare at the outset that my son is a recipient of disability living allowance and my wife is a recipient of carers allowance, so the issues, arguments and discussions that relate to the benefits system, its interaction with individuals and the changes that are taking place in how it is administered are not just germane to me; they are very much part and parcel of our everyday life.
We are currently reapplying for my son’s disability living allowance and I have been considering the reapplication and reassessment process that many individuals and families have to go through to be eligible not just for disability living allowance but for other benefits.
The process takes a long time, not necessarily because of the size of the form, although that is a consideration, but because it is utterly soul destroying—there is no other way to put it—to have to fill in a form of multiple pages explaining all the things that your child is incapable of doing. It is an emotional burden that results in many families taking a very long time to complete the form. As a consequence, they lose out on entitlements because, until the application goes through, entitlements cannot be picked up again. The longer it takes a family to go through the process, the longer it will take for them to receive the benefits to which they are entitled.
I do not know whether there is an easy answer to that. It strikes me that the reapplication and reassessment process should involve simply advising whether there have been any changes since the previous application was made, which could be backed up by health professionals or others. I make no commitment or comment other than to say that that would certainly merit investigation, as it would perhaps lift some of the emotional burden and reduce the length of time that it takes many individuals to fill in those applications.
Other members have spoken about the interaction between benefits, which is an extremely important issue for us to consider as the new powers come in and as policy and thinking around the area develop. Annabel Goldie highlighted the sums of money involved: approximately £2.5 billion to £2.75 billion of welfare responsibility will be devolved, but around £15 billion will remain reserved to Westminster.
Some of those benefits, and universal credit in particular, depend on interactions with income, and Christina McKelvie was entirely right to focus on the question of clawback. During the debate at Westminster on Monday, I noted that when my colleague Mhairi Black MP asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to state categorically that any additional top-up would not be categorised as income and therefore subject to clawback, he did not answer the question directly and did not rule that out. That merits further investigation, and I understand that the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee letter that was published this afternoon asks the secretary of state for clarity in that regard.
That leads to the question of assessments. We should be very concerned about the impact of today’s announcement from HMRC and any decision on job losses on HMRC’s capacity and ability to undertake calculations and assessments that are potentially very complicated, given that they relate to decisions that have been taken here in Scotland and interactions with an individual’s benefit entitlement. Those considerations will need to be fleshed out in order for us to ensure that the powers that we have can be used to benefit the people we want to benefit from them and to ensure that any decision making is done properly and is not necessarily constrained, hamstrung or—at the very worst—mismanaged as a result of a lack of available staff and time to undertake the assessments.
Leaving aside the issue of potential clawback on income, I see another question mark over areas of reserved benefit that we have the ability to top up and how new claimants will be assessed and dealt with. Where a benefit is reserved, eligibility for that benefit will be determined by the DWP and UK ministers, not by Scottish ministers. Some people could lose eligibility for benefits as a result of welfare reforms, but the Scottish Parliament will have the ability to top up or mitigate in those areas. If there are individuals in the future who no longer qualify but did so previously, that disparity will need to be examined and addressed.
That is not to say that there are not things that can be done and have been done in Scotland to support the most vulnerable. We have spoken about the mitigation of the bedroom tax, the establishment of the welfare fund and the council tax benefit replacement that was put in place. We also have areas within our responsibility, such as kinship care payments and educational maintenance allowance, in relation to which we have seen very clear statements of intent from the Scottish Government and the funding to follow those. However, even in those areas, there are questions about how future interactions around universal credit will be handled.
Another issue that we need to take into consideration is personal independent payments. One of the very clear statements that we made in advance of the debate was that any roll-out of PIP should be halted until it is devolved, which would have given us the opportunity to shape our system according to what we felt the population’s needs were. However, that has not happened. One of the difficulties that will have to be faced in the future, irrespective of the make-up of future Governments, is the need potentially to have to reshape an inherited system. Given that many people will have gone through the very difficult process of having their benefits entitlements reassessed, re-evaluated and reformed, it will be more difficult to redesign the system in very short order than it would have been to design and put in place our own system. That is another difficulty that will have to be faced.
Underpinning all of that is consideration of the fiscal framework, which Mr Rowley rather uncharitably suggested was an entirely secret process. However, the Deputy First Minister has said that he is willing to discuss with Opposition parties the areas that they want more clarity on, and the process will be subject to scrutiny by the Parliament’s committees in due course, which will address any questions.
My point of agreement with both Mr Rowley and Mr Chisholm, who has raised the point in previous debates, is that we must ensure that the fiscal framework ensures that the powers are deliverable and that Scotland is not hamstrung and does not lose out as a consequence. If we approach the matter on that basis—and it seems that we have unity of purpose in that regard—it will present a very strong case to the secretary of state and help to ensure that he brings forward a fiscal framework that we can agree with and sign up to, and that ensures that the powers can be used for the benefit of the people of Scotland.
16:02
The Scotland Bill will give this Parliament, for the first time, significant powers over social security. I welcome the work of the Welfare Reform Committee on this matter and congratulate it on focusing on how those powers can be implemented to deliver a fairer social security system for the people of Scotland.
The Scottish Parliament already has huge powers over Scottish public services, but the devolution of social security powers will mean that members in the next session of Parliament will have greater powers than ever before to deliver a step-change in our efforts to reduce poverty and tackle inequalities. Not only will the changes allow us to put tackling those issues at the core of our social security policy, they will allow us to develop a uniquely Scottish policy that can be tailored to local and individual circumstances and is simpler, quicker to deliver and accessible to everyone who needs it.
For example, with devolution of the work programme, we can seek to devolve it even further to local authorities, who can tailor it for their areas. We will need to consider how that will function, given that responsibility for job centres remains reserved. We should also be looking to adopt a bottom-up approach rather than a top-down one, because one size does not fit all. A Scottish social security system needs to move away from that approach and, where possible, move towards more tailored support that meets individuals’ specific needs.
With that in mind, we should look to humanise our social security policy and develop a joined-up approach. Far too often, people fall through the cracks. Those with complex needs should have a key worker, rather than the numerous points of contact that they have at present. Promoting more joined-up thinking must start now. If we wait until the powers actually come to this Parliament, it will already be too late.
We should develop a person-centred welfare policy that supports people and is receptive to their needs, not one that is target driven. We should be focused on helping people get back on their feet and on supporting them in getting over a difficult period in their life, whether they are finding work or recovering from illness. The system needs to promote respect and dignity, rather than demonise those who fall on hard times through illness, disability or job loss.
In its submission to the committee, the Poverty Alliance said that there has been
“a marked increase in the use of stigmatising and divisive language both by politicians and by the media.”
In Scotland, we will have a chance to reverse that. With the devolved powers, we will have an opportunity to place dignity and respect at the heart of our social security system and—crucially—to restore trust.
In practical terms, the importance of this debate has been highlighted over the past few weeks by the Tory Government’s proposed tax credit cuts. Currently, around 11,500 families in North Ayrshire could be affected by the Tory tax credit cuts and we should be doing everything that we can to protect those hard-working families. The new powers will allow us to do something about that by choosing to reverse those cuts with top-up benefits. Scottish Labour will do just that, and I urge the SNP to sign up to doing the same. We will have the power; we just need the political will to do things differently. Just as we came together on Trident and the Trade Union Bill, we should now come together to say no to the tax credits cuts and reverse them if they go ahead.
Grandstanding does not protect the most vulnerable in our society. It is time to show that we can do things differently in Scotland. Once the Scotland Bill is passed, we will have clarity on the range of powers coming to this Parliament and, crucially, what we can do with them. However, as I said, we should not wait until the Scotland Bill has received royal assent. We should be setting out our plans now—and not just our plans on what we will do with the new powers.
Will the member give way?
I am almost finished, but if you wish.
I certainly agree that where it is possible to outline plans and proposals, we should seek to do so, at least to develop thinking. However, given that the autumn budget statement is yet to come and that undoubtedly there will be further changes before the powers are transferred here, does Margaret McDougall agree that some development of that thinking will have to be on-going? The ground will shift before the powers come to this Parliament.
That is what I am saying. We need to start thinking about them now; we cannot wait until they are upon us. We need some sort of plan for what our new social security system will look like.
We should be setting out a positive vision for the future of welfare. We need a welfare system that moves away from targets and has people, dignity, respect and trust at its heart.
16:09
I will begin with a quote from Bill Scott, of the charity Inclusion Scotland, on the system that we are hoping to build. He said:
“the system has to be based on treating every person who comes into it as a human being like any other and with dignity and respect. That is missing from the current system, which is all about saving benefits spend.”—[Official Report, Welfare Reform Committee, 22 September 2015; c 3.]
I am therefore very pleased to hear that the Government is mirroring his words with regard to the system that we hope to design. As a member of the Welfare Reform Committee, I think that, as colleagues have said, the evidence that we received clearly shows that the UK system does not treat people with dignity and respect.
In particular, the need for face-to-face and repeat assessments of people who require PIP is unacceptable. Mark McDonald has spoken very movingly about his experience; I, too, have experience of that through a member of my family. It is incredibly stressful to receive the form, make the telephone calls and so on when the individual in question is a relative who you know will not get better and whose condition will not improve. That situation needs to be tackled, because we should not be having these repeat assessments. Witnesses at committee meetings have also repeatedly referred to the lack of weight given to the views of medical professionals in the PIP assessment, and clearly that is something that has to change.
Some interesting suggestions were made to the committee about disability benefits, including assessing individuals according to the approach taken by NHS occupational therapists and asking, “What does this person need to live with dignity?” As other members have pointed out, the excessive and complex form filling is completely unacceptable. It is also unacceptable that most people are not able to fill in a PIP assessment without professional support. I am sure that we can design a simpler and much less stressful system.
That said, I think that the piecemeal devolution of benefits in this area means that we can make only part of the disabled person’s experience better, because they will continue to have to apply for employment and support allowance and to be put through many of the humiliating and downright dangerous work capability assessments that come with it. Of course, as others have pointed out, by the time that they receive these benefits, 20 per cent of the funding will have been cut, and that, too, will be a huge challenge.
As for the delivery of benefits, a number of people in the debate have referred to a joined-up approach and the role of local government in all this. That is absolutely understandable, but I refer those members to submissions made to the committee by a whole range of charities including CPAG, Inclusion Scotland and Enable Scotland, which are very much opposed to benefits being not just administered but shaped by local authorities. On PIP, DLA, attendance allowance and carers allowance, CPAG said in its submission:
“CPAG strongly believe that responsibility for disability and carers benefits should be held at Scottish national level and that it should not be devolved to local authorities. The risks associated with localisation of benefits are well documented for example in relation to England’s local welfare assistance scheme. Previously administered at UK level, devolution of this discretionary scheme to local level has resulted in confusion, erosion of entitlement and a lack of transparency and oversight.”
Other submissions went even further. Inclusion Scotland’s submission, for example, talks about going back to the poor law and the whole idea of the parish deciding how much money a person is entitled to.
Since I entered the Parliament, I have been struck by the fact that we are continually arguing about whether responsibility for things lies with the Scottish Government or local government. We need to have a grown-up debate about the issue. When I spoke in last week’s debate on the Carers (Scotland) Bill, I took up the cause of carers charities, which very strongly believe that the eligibility criteria for carers benefits should be set at national level. I know that the Government’s current position is to work with councils on setting the level of benefits locally, but I, too, very much believe that it should be set at national level and hope that we can get to that position.
Those kinds of tensions will be repeated when we start to look at the administration of disability benefits in Scotland. We need to take that on board and look at examples from other European countries where eligibility criteria are set nationally but it is more practical to administer the system at local level. I definitely think that we should not allow ourselves to get hung up on ideology; it is the disabled people and the claimants who must determine and shape the operation of the system.
I also welcome that the work programme will be developed. I believe that we can make that better, too. The witnesses that we heard at committee described very negative experiences of the work programmes as colleagues have outlined. They talked about feeling bullied and, in one case, being reduced to tears. In other cases, the work programme prevented them from moving into work.
During a follow-up session to that very emotional evidence, we spoke to the private companies that deliver the work programme. I quoted evidence to those private companies about the number of people on employment and support allowance on the work programme who found a job, compared to those who were sanctioned.
Official figures show that, in the period to March 2014, 14,000 people on ESA who were on the work programme found a job but 41,000 people on ESA on the work programme received a sanction. What that means is that a disabled person on the work programme was three times more likely to be sanctioned than to find a job.
I was very shocked that, when I put those figures to the representatives of Working Links, in particular, they defended the sanctions regime. I have now written to Iain Duncan Smith, asking him to review those contracts, which have already been extended to 2017. I echo the comments made by colleagues that, when we do get control of the work programme, I do not thing that profit-driven companies should be put in charge. I think that that view is shared by several other members of the committee. I would like to see the programmes delivered either by non-profit organisations or by government itself.
As with disability, even if we design the best possible alternative to the work programme in Scotland, sanctions remain reserved. The fact that it explicitly singled out sanctions in the bill as something that the Scottish Parliament could not ameliorate or top up reflects the UK Government’s whole approach to the devolution of some welfare benefits. It says that it is devolving welfare, but really it wants to keep hold of the culture that defines its welfare to work programme and its approach to welfare, which is imported from the United States and is extremely punitive.
Finally, if I have enough time—
You can carry on for a little yet.
Other people have discussed tax credits at length. Alex Rowley quite rightly mentioned his constituents who work for Amazon and the difficulties that they face around Christmas due to the variability of their income. Addressing that issue would seem to me to be an obvious reason for devolving universal credit, because that is what would help us to tackle the difficulties that are experienced by those people and by people in receipt of tax credits. That is why I was disappointed that Labour chose to vote with the Tories at Westminster not to devolve universal credit.
16:18
As a non-member of the committee, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate on the future of social security in Scotland. Although we might have differing views on the extent to which the Parliament should have control of welfare, there is no doubt that the Scotland Bill provides an opportunity for the Parliament.
Any social security system ought to exist to protect the most vulnerable in society and we should measure its success by its ability to do so. We must, however, get the new powers on social security right. We must design a system that puts dignity and respect first and adopts a person-centred approach, as my colleague Kevin Stewart powerfully suggested earlier. The Parliament needs to commit itself to powers that make a difference and we have to accept that we operate in an environment in which, far from enhancing welfare, the Westminster Government is intent on making £12 billion-worth of cuts UK-wide.
The Scotland Bill will see us gain responsibility for more than 11 benefits, worth more than £2.5 billion a year. We will also gain powers to top up those who are entitled to benefit payments and to create new benefits. It is a step in the right direction.
I will first say a few words about employment in the work programme. We must continue the good work that we are doing in relation to fair work, the living wage and the creation of an effective and viable Scottish alternative to the work programme. People must be placed firmly at the heart of it. That is why it is important that the Scottish Government continues its public discussion with service users, communities, businesses, training providers and trade unions on how best to tackle the existing challenges faced by employers and those who are looking for work. Only by listening to those groups can we shape our future employment services to the needs of jobseekers and the wider Scottish economy.
The devolution of the work programme and work choice offers an opportunity to improve the fortunes of the most vulnerable Scots. However, there are significant obstacles to overcome. As members will be aware, the committee heard from participants of the work programme who have suffered because of the way in which the programme currently operates. The committee heard painful stories about how participants, throughout their engagement with the work programme, have lived in constant fear of being sanctioned, with the consequent physical and mental effects that that has had. Worryingly, the sanctions aspect of the work programme will remain reserved to Westminster, meaning that the Scottish Parliament will be powerless to protect vulnerable Scots from sanctions.
In his evidence to the committee this week, Mark Willis of the Child Poverty Action Group stated:
“As we have seen, sanctions are imposed quite unfairly in many cases and a lot of sanctions decisions are overturned. There are huge concerns and much evidence of inappropriate use of sanctions.”—[Official Report, Welfare Reform Committee, 10 November 2015; c 18-19.]
The decision to retain sanctions at Westminster will create another problem, to which Kevin Stewart referred: confusion. Tanya Gilchrist of the Shaw Trust told the committee:
“I certainly think that it will cause confusion.”—[Official Report, Welfare Reform Committee, 3 November 2015; c 17.]
There is certainly a case for the devolution of Jobcentre Plus; it is a shame that that is being missed. I also agree, once again, with my colleague Kevin Stewart that the system could be improved if the conditionality aspects of the work programme were devolved.
Given that we have a wee bit of time in the debate, I wonder whether the member will take the opportunity to explain—if he, like many of his colleagues, is opposed to sanctions—whether he imagines a benefits system that would have no measures within it to ensure that people engaged in the process.
No. We need to give thought to how the system progresses, but I think that we should be talking about carrots rather than sticks.
The negative experiences of participants in the work programme are an indication that a future Scottish work programme must take account of individual circumstances and requirements. We must examine the evidence to understand what has worked well and what could be done better, building such lessons into the design and commissioning of future services.
I turn to carers allowance. This morning, in the press, we heard about the contribution that unpaid carers make to our society. The University of Sheffield estimates that the 6.8 million volunteer carers are saving UK taxpayers £132 billion. For most of us, contributing time to looking after members of our family is something that we positively embrace, but we must recognise that carers need support. As we know, carers allowance is paid at one of the lowest rates of all working benefits. The announcement in October that the Scottish Government will increase the rate of carers allowance is, therefore, to be warmly welcomed. Although Carers Scotland expressed disappointment that carers benefits are not to be fully devolved to the Scottish Parliament, it nevertheless took the view that the structure of carers allowance could be improved under the Scotland Bill. We ought to ensure that access to carers allowance and understanding of it are improved so that carers and their families get the financial support that they need. I am also mindful of the evidence that Richard Meade of Marie Curie gave to the committee in September, when he said with some force:
“Health, social care and welfare systems frequently fail carers, particularly those who are caring for someone at the end of life, yet carers are often among the most important parts of that package”.—[Official Report, Welfare Reform Committee, 15 September 2015; c 13.]
In any new system, we should take account of concerns such as those that were expressed by Marie Curie.
Nevertheless, the new system will cost money, and let us remember that money that is spent on carers allowance will not be available to be spent elsewhere. That is why it is important—indeed, crucial—that we ensure that the fiscal framework that goes with the bill is fair and workable. My colleague Christina McKelvie was right to mention the importance of the no-detriment principle, and one has only to look at what the Scottish Government is doing now to understand why many of us take the view that social security is better in the hands of those who live and work in Scotland.
Most recently, the Scottish Government began work to administer Scottish and Northern Irish independent living fund service users awards. That was necessary after the previous Conservative-Liberal Democrat Administration terminated the UK independent living fund. ILF provides individuals who have a range of impairments with financial support to live their lives in the community. The funding helps them to exercise choice and control, and enables them to live as independently as possible with the right support.
The Scottish welfare fund, which the Scottish Government obviously has experience of, has been mentioned. The fund has helped more than 164,000 vulnerable households since it began. That indicates our commitment in Scotland to welfare and a track record that we can build on. I sincerely hope that we will do that in exercising the new powers.
We will need to look at practical suggestions about how the new social security powers may be used. Discussions throughout the third sector indicate that a new, coherent approach to policy making is required that can integrate the new and existing powers. The third sector has also been clear that those who will be affected by the new powers should be involved in that design. I believe that that is an eminently sensible suggestion.
The Scotland Bill will open a new chapter on welfare. I hope that Scotland will lead the way.
We now move to the closing speeches. I invite members who have taken part in the debate to return to the chamber if they are so minded, please. I call Annabel Goldie.
16:26
This has been a genuinely interesting and constructive debate, and I am grateful to the Welfare Reform Committee for making it possible.
The committee convener, Hugh Henry, got the debate off to an excellent start with both the tone and content of his speech. Indeed, his willingness to share his speech with us in advance of the debate was a welcome and helpful innovation, because it set some sensible and useful parameters that helped to focus attention on key points and challenges. In fairness, I should say that a number of other members have welcomed the spirit of that overture and have responded positively—not the least of whom was the minister, Margaret Burgess. Malcolm Chisholm made important points, and Mark McDonald made some very reflective points and posed persuasive arguments.
There is an exciting but formidable challenge confronting political parties and this Parliament about how we in Scotland plan, provide and deliver social security under the new powers in the Scotland Bill. We are talking about a welfare budget of £2.7 billion.
Let me talk about ethos. Whatever the system is and whatever benefits it is responsible for delivering, we will probably have our own distinctive Scottish way of doing it. We can do things differently; I suspect that that is what we will choose to do.
I thank Annabel Goldie for her comments. This afternoon she will have heard the concern that if the powers that will come to us are used to make payments, for example, to top-up benefits that would otherwise be lost, that may result in clawback by Westminster. Could she perhaps use the privileged position that she is in elsewhere to seek clarity on that issue on behalf of the committee?
I thank Hugh Henry for making that point. That issue has been raised elsewhere, and my understanding is that there would be no attempt to claw back and that the universal credit provision would be provided in its own right. However, I will seek clarification on that for Hugh Henry.
A useful staring point in the debate was the list of principles to which Hugh Henry referred: dignity and respect, both of which Joan McAlpine mentioned; having a person-centred system, which Margaret McDougall talked about; making sure that we base our system on human rights; making sure that it is passported, with eligibility for one benefit automatically leading to qualification for others; and making it simple, with documentation in plain English, on which Mark McDonald in particular made a telling contribution.
That all gets to the heart of what we must do to create our new Scottish social security system. That is where we are getting to; that is the brand that we are talking about. Therefore, I was interested in the minister’s take on that. It is difficult to see how that brand would operate without concomitant political responsibility and accountability, so the logical consequence is that there should be a Government minister who has responsibility for welfare and, probably, that there should be a parliamentary committee.
However, a delicate balance must be struck. Whatever benefits are devised, we need to have in place efficient and cost effective delivery structures and mechanisms. If some such structures already exist—for example, local authorities—it may be possible to use them. The Scottish welfare fund is a good example of that. However, Joan McAlpine made a number of interesting points about some benefits perhaps being better administered nationally. Those are genuinely important matters upon which we need to reflect.
It is also the case that the DWP will continue to have a presence throughout Scotland delivering universal credit. The question that that raises is whether we really want to replicate its presence in all our communities by setting up a separate Scottish social security office. In terms of sensible use of resources, that would seem to be unwise, but how we will take that forward is a matter for discussion. The challenging period of transition will also require co-operation with the DWP.
On employability, work training and work programmes, it is worth reflecting that, in most communities, local authorities carry responsibility for economic regeneration, local schools educate, colleges respond with education provision to the needs of the local economy, and responsibility for business rates may be returning in some form to local authorities. In that context, although I accept that there may be a need for an overall Scottish Government framework, local delivery of the programmes might be much more effective.
It is clear that there is a need for flexibility if the new powers are to work to best effect for the recipients of support. Where we have existing physical presences throughout Scotland, it makes sense to try to harness them and, where possible, to devolve decision making and delivery of provision to as local a level as possible.
On the powers that we shall have in relation to universal credit, I am sympathetic to the idea that, if the claimant wants the housing element to be paid direct to the landlord, we should do that. There should be flexibility about to whom universal credit is paid, and if fortnightly payment is easier for recipients, why not do that? The really important thing is to find out what works best for a household, what will maximise its ability to budget and what will minimise the prospect of there being difficulty in managing its finances.
The Scotland Bill allows for topping up of benefits and for the creation of new ones in the areas of devolved responsibility. It provides flexibility in relation to setting income tax bands and rates. That includes a nil band, if that is affordable.
Those are wide powers. I appreciate that the different parties in the Parliament may have different approaches to how they wish to deploy and use them, but I say to the convener of the Welfare Reform Committee that we need to exercise some caution and, if possible, to try to find some agreement across parties about structures, mechanisms and process before we plunge into specific proposals about which of the new powers to invoke and in what form. The latter inevitably raises political choices, but the former need not do that.
I hope that the Welfare Reform Committee can continue to facilitate that positive discussion. This has been a good debate in which some sensible points have emerged. There is recognition that we are in new territory and that we have to be exploratory and ambitious, but sensible. If the Welfare Reform Committee can be the fulcrum for that discussion, there is scope for a continuing and, I hope, constructive and positive dialogue.
16:34
I, too, welcome the debate that we have had. The speeches have been positive and have shown a real desire to create in Scotland a social security system that builds and improves on what is already there, and which can—I hope—be part of a joined-up approach to tackling inequality and poverty across the country.
I will start by addressing some important points that Joan McAlpine made about localism and local government. I have read some of the evidence that was submitted on local authorities being given responsibility for decisions on local benefits, and I agree with the point that Joan McAlpine made about the poor law. I think that Scotland-wide criteria must be put in place. My argument about devolution to local level related to the work programme; I will come back to that.
I absolutely agree with Joan McAlpine’s point about eligibility criteria. Over the many years in which I was in local government, as financial pressure was put on local authorities, the eligibility criteria for a range of services—for example, home care—would suddenly change and be tightened. That has been a way for local authorities to deal with cuts, but it is not the right thing to do for the people who are on the receiving end and who have their services cut. One of the briefings that we received for the debate deals with that interesting point. It states:
“At present the social security budget is demand led with no set limit on the amount of money available. This will not be the case for devolved benefits, meaning that careful planning must take place to ensure that benefit entitlements are sustainable.”
I would hate to see happening what I witnessed over many years in local government, when eligibility criteria kept on being tightened and people would cease to be eligible for certain services purely because of the council’s financial situation and the cuts. That has been the experience in local government.
In relation to the work programme, if members look at local government across Scotland, they will find that some extremely innovative projects and work are under way to support people. In many cases, people who are far removed from the labour market lack even basic life skills. That is not recognised in the current work programme, which is about ticking boxes. Intensive programmes need to be put in place to support such people, as a number of organisations that submitted evidence said. There are third sector organisations out there that are very good at that work, but that activity needs to be co-ordinated. In my view, that should be done not by the Government at Scotland-wide level, but on a regional basis. Local government has a key role to play in co-ordination of that as part of a wider network of regional economic strategies that need to be put in place across Scotland. I hope that the minister will not rule out the possibility of local authorities playing a key role in relation to the strategic direction of the work programme and, indeed, its delivery.
Local authorities can pull together the third sector and—this is important—business and industry, which we must involve if we are to make the system work. They should be partners in delivering the anti-poverty strategy. If we are serious about tackling inequality and poverty, we must recognise that giving people the ability to get the skills and to get work is crucial. I have said time and again that throughout the history of the labour movement people have never marched for benefits: they have marched for jobs, opportunities and skills.
If we are to tackle poverty, we need decent jobs. I gave the example earlier of Amazon, to which Joan McAlpine also referred. I speak to people who are trying to go through agencies to get jobs with Amazon because they are desperate. We must replace such poor employment. That is why I come back to the living wage.
Annabel Goldie summed up for the Conservatives, but she did not talk about tax credits. It is a fact that the cuts in tax credits—I think that a point was made about George Osborne’s next round—will drive hundreds of thousands of people in this country into further in-work poverty.
I completely and utterly agree with Mr Rowley on tax credits, but I cannot understand why the Labour Party chose to walk through the lobbies with the Tories to have tax credits remain reserved when the Scottish Parliament, which is much more progressive, could have done much better if that power and the resource with it had come here.
Joan McAlpine made the same point when she spoke about universal credit and asked why it would not have been better to have control over that. We have to start to talk seriously about how we will use the powers that the Scottish Parliament has and the significant and substantial powers that it will have, but I am absolutely clear that that is not the end of the road, for me. I support home rule for Scotland, and I am absolutely clear that we are on a journey, that devolution is a journey and that, if we need more powers, we need to make the case for them. We will make the case on that journey to wherever it eventually takes us.
However, right now, I believe the people of Scotland. The Scotland Bill has gone through and been agreed in the Westminster Parliament. We now need to start to set out very clearly how we will use those powers to tackle inequality and poverty and share wealth better. That is how we need to move forward.
Joan McAlpine made a point about sanctions, and Alex Johnstone asked whether we are saying that there would never be sanctions. There are types of sanction in most walks of life. The point is that the sanctions that are being introduced through the Tory Government’s welfare reforms are absolutely unacceptable. We need only to meet people and families out there in communities in my Cowdenbeath constituency and, I am sure, across Scotland and to hear their stories to know that the sanctions are barbaric. People are being picked on, singled out and starved. In this modern day, families are being starved and driven to food banks. That cannot be acceptable. Therefore, we absolutely oppose the Tory sanctions.
That goes to the heart of the point that Margaret McDougall made; she said that respect and dignity must sit at the heart of the Scottish social security system. We must build in respect and dignity. John Wilson made a point about making it easier to fill in forms, for example. People should be treated with respect and dignity.
I will sum up by making a point that Hugh Henry made when he talked about winter fuel and cold weather payments. Those policies were introduced by Gordon Brown as chancellor, as were tax credits. We need to think about the principles when those policies were put in place. With the winter fuel and cold weather payments, the principle was that older people would tend to be in their houses during the winter; they would not be out or working and so would need more heat. They get cold, so it is right that they should not be in fuel poverty. We need to look at the principles when such things were put in place by the previous Labour Government and ensure that they stay in place, no matter the colour of the Administration in Scotland.
16:43
Like others, I think that the debate has been good. There has been consensus across the chamber on a number of issues, particularly on the type of social security system that we want to see in Scotland. We want a Scottish social security system that is based on dignity and respect for the individual and is person centred, as Margaret McDougall mentioned.
During the debate, we have recognised that there are opportunities with the new powers that are coming to the Parliament, but there are also considerable challenges, and we cannot shy away from them. Real challenges are created when partial benefits are devolved. Kevin Stewart and Christina McKelvie highlighted those challenges very well.
Before I respond to points that have been made, I want to say something about tax credits, which a number of members have mentioned, including Kevin Stewart. He showed very clearly the difficulties in having that benefit partially devolved, and that was demonstrated very clearly in the Welfare Reform Committee meeting yesterday.
Like Kevin Stewart and other SNP members, I would much prefer to have the tax credit system devolved in its entirety. I was extremely disappointed—in fact, I almost could not believe it—that, when the UK Parliament considered the amendment on the issue on Monday, Labour members went through the lobby with the Tories and basically voted to retain the power to cut tax credits at Westminster. Labour voted to allow the Tories in Westminster to cut tax credits at their will, but it then expects the Scottish Government to make up the difference and pay for that. I was so disappointed by Labour’s position on that. We have heard about the difficulties that there will be in trying to assist low-income families—as Christina McKelvie said, it is not straightforward. She and Mark McDonald illustrated clearly the difficulties in trying to help the low-income families who will drop out of the system, perhaps this April.
I will respond to some of the other points that have been made. Alex Rowley talked quite a bit about localism, whereas Joan McAlpine came from another point of view on that issue. We are having a genuine and honest debate on that. The Scottish Government is appraising the options for delivery and considering the process. We are consulting COSLA. We want to take time, because we have to get that right. The issue will of course come to the Parliament. We have had initial discussions with representatives, including COSLA and local bodies, as well as people with expert knowledge.
Does the minister agree that, if we are going to trust local government to do some of the delivery, we must trust local government to do enough of it so that we can get efficiencies in the delivery network? Does she agree that giving local government a small bit will be inefficient and cost more money than it is worth?
I was just going to say that we must be aware that any delivery has to be cost effective. We cannot spend the money in our social security system on administering it; we have to ensure that the money goes into the pockets of the people who need it. Therefore of course it has to be a cost-effective service. It also has to be high quality and customer focused—that is the kind of service that we are looking for.
We have to align delivery to local services. If it is appropriate for any social security to be delivered through local government, we have to ensure that it is properly aligned and that there is flexibility to deliver it in different ways. There is on-going discussion on all that. It is a challenge and an opportunity, and we all have to consider how we take it forward.
Mark McDonald and others talked about how we can make better use of medical evidence. We are considering how we can make the assessment process fairer and one that people have confidence in. A number of members, including Roderick Campbell, Joan McAlpine and, I think, Malcolm Chisholm, talked about the difficulties that people face in getting into the system. We need to involve the stakeholders in that. An important feature of any social security system is that it must take on board the views of those who will be its customers. At some point, we might all be customers of the system. We are considering how we can make the system accessible and much more customer focused.
A number of members made the crucial point about the clawback of any benefits or top-up payments that the Scottish Government provides. We need absolute clarity about that. I appreciate that Annabel Goldie said that she would take up the issue with her counterparts at Westminster, but we need a clear commitment from the UK Government that there will be no clawback. That will be crucial to any fiscal arrangements that are made. If there is any clawback, there will be no benefit to people and we will be paying to administer something that does not help the people who desperately need help from the system. On that basis, that issue is a red line for me.
I do not have much more time, but I have another couple of points. I think that all members agree that, by putting people at the heart of social security, we will go some way to lifting the fears and rebuilding trust—it is useful to have that commitment from across the chamber. That illustrates the important point, which I want to make again, that we all have a stake in the social security system. It is not a system that belongs to the Government, it does not belong to an Administration and it does not belong to local government; it belongs to each and every one of us and we all have a stake in it. At some point in our lives, we—or our family, neighbours or friends—may need that system. When we do, we need to have confidence in it and we need to know that the support will be there and that there will be no stigma attached to it.
Many people face additional challenges and costs in their daily lives because of ill health or disability. It is right that society as a whole helps to meet those challenges and that we meet them together. I hope that that is the approach that we all agree should be taken forward.
I reinforce the Government’s strong record on taking action to mitigate the worst effects of the UK’s welfare reforms and to protect Scotland’s citizens. Our current and planned funding will result in an investment of around £296 million over the period 2013-14 to 2015-16. We have mitigated the impact of the bedroom tax. We have established the Scottish welfare fund. We have provided £1 million of funding from 2014 to 2016 to help combat food poverty. We have invested around £1.6 million per year since 2013-14 in the living wage across the parts of the public sector where the Scottish Government controls the pay bill, assisting 6,000 people.
All of that demonstrates our commitment to ensuring that there is support in place and that we will continue to support vulnerable people and communities.
Will the minister take an intervention?
The minister is about to close.
Am I in my last minute?
You are.
I am sorry—I cannot give way.
We also have to look at the Scottish welfare fund and reflect on that. I believe that it is a success story, although the circumstances in which it has been set up reflect the damage to our communities of welfare changes.
As I finish, I make it clear that we need to get the fiscal framework right. The Scottish Government’s position is clear: we will not accept a fiscal framework that is not a fair deal for Scotland. I hope that the whole chamber can agree with that.
I thank everyone today for making the debate fit the time available. I call Clare Adamson to wind up the debate on behalf of the Welfare Reform Committee.
16:52
I thank all my colleagues who have contributed to this afternoon’s debate. We have heard, from across the chamber, a wealth of different views, options, suggestions and, indeed, warnings, but the common thread that has run through the speeches has been that the future of social security is of key importance for the people of Scotland.
Although the Welfare Reform Committee welcomes the additional social security powers that will be devolved to the Scottish Parliament, we appreciate that designing a new Scottish social security system will be, in Miss Goldie’s words, a “formidable challenge”—especially because responsibility for it will still be shared with Westminster, as has been highlighted by colleagues this afternoon.
Despite that challenge, we hope that the powers in the Scotland Bill can be used to build something that will improve greatly on the current system, rectify many of the failings that we have heard about during the course of our inquiry and, in doing so, go some way towards resolving the hardships that are being faced by people around the country—hardships that we are hearing about in our surgeries and constituency offices day after day.
I want to address some of the points that have been made in the debate. The committee’s convener, Hugh Henry, set out the principles of our approach to social security. He talked about dignity, respect, personalisation of the system, the importance of passporting in the new system and the need for the system to be greatly simplified. I think that all members’ speeches contained that key theme of dignity and respect; even Alex Johnstone managed to acknowledge that recent research has shown that dignity and respect might be lacking in the current system.
Alex Rowley set out his commitment to tackling poverty in Scotland. I wonder whether he was inspired by what former Prime Minister John Major said yesterday. It is significant that two former Prime Ministers have talked about the importance of tackling inequality and poverty. All members who took part in the debate reflected on that.
On the specifics of the Scotland Bill, disability living allowance and personal independence payments are hugely important. The minister talked about delays in the PIP process, which have caused such confusion and difficulty for people. Welfare reform has had a significant impact on people, even before the powers have been devolved to us.
Mark McDonald highlighted that roll-out of PIP had been requested by, but denied to the Scottish Government. By the time we get control of PIP and are able to make a Scottish solution for it, many people will already have gone through the reassessment that causes the stress and the problems that have been highlighted by many members today.
The carers allowance is also of key importance. The minister highlighted that the carers allowance will be increased to equivalence with jobseekers allowance. Malcolm Chisholm acknowledged that, and Rod Campbell welcomed it. We note the abolition of the 84-day rule, which affects the families of seriously ill and disabled children in hospital.
Many members, including Mark McDonald, Christina McKelvie and Malcolm Chisholm, spoke about clawback. We need clarity on that. I welcome the fact that Miss Goldie has confirmed that she will try to seek that clarity, and I welcome the fact that the minister has highlighted the issue as being of key importance.
The work programme and work choice are significant. We heard evidence about them in committee, and Hugh Henry highlighted them in relation in particular to people with disabilities. The minister simply said that the work programme and work choice are not working. We know that from evidence to the committee. The fact that access to work grants is being reserved was mentioned by Malcolm Chisholm, Kevin Stewart and Joan McAlpine.
The problems for people with mental health issues within the system, and the question whether they are recognised correctly within it, are also of key interest to members.
There is no consensus about how the new work programme will be delivered: local and national options were discussed, but several members, including Christina McKelvie, mentioned that the profitability of the private sector’s involvement may and should be considered.
Universal credit was highlighted as a major concern. We will have administrative responsibility for universal credit, but responsibility will not all be devolved to the Parliament. We will be particularly constrained by the fact that sanctions will remain within the auspices of the DWP, which will cause considerable problems in any roll-out of the work programme or work choice programmes that might be developed for a specific Scottish solution.
On the delivery framework, we discussed local delivery and national delivery, but what seems to be most important to members is that we avoid ending up with a postcode lottery of delivery. When local solutions are adopted, they should be appropriate, and no one should lose out under the system.
The minister spoke about how integration and partnership working in Scotland will be absolutely key to getting delivery right. That was mentioned by many other members, including Margaret McDougall, Malcolm Chisholm and Joan McAlpine. Malcolm Chisholm mentioned in particular the maternity grant, delivery of which should perhaps lie with the NHS.
This has been a very interesting debate, and many issues have been raised about how we should go forward. Partnership working, engaging with stakeholders and working together to find solutions are most important.
One area that has been mentioned in the debate and which is key to the whole thing is the fiscal framework. The minister, Alex Rowley, Malcolm Chisholm, Christina McKelvie and Mark McDonald all emphasised how important it is to get that right.
It has been a privilege to take part in the debate. I believe that those who took part in the work of the committee, on panels and in informal discussions, sometimes giving evidence under considerable stress and difficulty, will know, through this afternoon’s debate, that their voices have been heard.
We may not all agree on the extent of the powers, but today I have seen genuine commitment to use the powers that we will get to build a clear, costed and credible Scottish social security solution that is based on dignity, respect and partnership.