Chamber and committees

I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate on the benefit take-up strategy as set out by the cabinet secretary. No one knows when they are just one life experience away from needing support and assistance that will help to see them through or to ease the burden of financial hardship. A compassionate Scotland has at its heart a social security system that is there for people when they need it and that puts dignity, fairness and respect at its centre. That almost goes without saying—that principle has wide support in the Scottish Parliament and has been implemented by the Scottish Government.

That approach recognises that ensuring that people have access to social security entitlements is incredibly important. Those benefits are there for a purpose and because we believe that they are the backbone of a just and fair society and a vital investment in the lives of our constituents.

If anyone was in two minds about the importance of having a social security system, the worst of the pandemic and lockdowns must surely have ended those doubts. The take-up strategy is a significant contribution to meeting the rights-based approach that forms the platform for our social security system. It is a comprehensive approach to ensuring that people have access to the support that they are due. The strategy has been shaped and formed by the experience of those who, through no fault of their own, have struggled to navigate the system. There is a strong emphasis on continued consultation to seek out barriers to take-up.

We know that there are three key barriers to take-up. The first barrier is the lack of information, including information about the available benefits in the application process. It is important that we address any knowledge defects relating to new benefits. That is recognised in the approach that has been set out. The second barrier is costly and complex access. It is important that we support people to navigate the system and that we fund advice and support. The third barrier is the social one, including perceived stigma. We must go all out, not just as a social security system but as politicians, to tackle stigma and bring about an end to misconceptions.

We must also invest in services to support people and ensure that those are accessible in places and ways that are best suited to people’s needs. I welcome the £10 million allocated during the current session to help to fund that approach. Many councils provide excellent welfare rights services that are in the heart of our communities. I want to take the opportunity to praise all the welfare rights advice services in Clydebank and Milngavie. Local government must be adequately funded to maintain those services and must have equality of access to any additional funding.

Our dignity, fairness and respect approach is important in increasing take-up, too. We should not underestimate how much getting decisions right first time and treating people with compassion will help to increase confidence in our social security system. The shameful UK war on welfare for the purposes of some cheap headlines is cruel and has created stigma that has been hard to bear. We are right to kick out the private sector assessments that lined the pockets of the rich while inflicting misery on many disabled people who have been denied the support that they are due. We are right to take a more compassionate approach to terminal illness claims and we are right to condemn the sanctions regime, which does not promote take-up or provide social security for people when they need it.

Policy is important. When I questioned members of the Scottish Fiscal Commission at our Social Justice and Social Security Committee, they accepted that our changes in policy mean an anticipated higher take-up of adult disability payment compared to the previous UK benefit. It is no wonder that Scope UK, the disability equality charity for England and Wales, has launched a campaign called “disability benefits without the fight”. Scope is calling for a fairer disability assessment process and for people to be assessed by those health professionals that know about their condition. That does not sound like rocket science, does it?

Why has the benefit system treated people so badly for so long? As Scope says, it should not be a fight, and

“Disabled people should get the right benefits, the first time round.”

Scope also points out that, between 2017 and 2019, the UK Government spent £120 million on fighting appeals to benefit decisions. In Scotland, we must promote the right to appeal and adapt our approach if barriers to taking up the right to challenge a decision are identified.

Setting a policy to meet our agenda of fairness, dignity and respect will help to increase take-up. That approach, coupled with a take-up strategy that is resourced and person centred and that rejects stigma and gets the message out effectively will make all the difference. Let us unite behind that approach to create a compassionate, fair and supportive system of social security that improves take-up by those who need it and invests in the people of Scotland.

I go back to the issue of trust. The cabinet secretary has acknowledged how difficult the unsatisfactory experience has been for the women affected. What they have endured is appalling and there is no doubt that there is now a lack of trust in the service. How confident is the cabinet secretary that confidence in the service can be re-established? What lessons can we learn from this whole process?

Good morning. I have a follow-up question. Can someone directly self-refer to the service?

Good morning, cabinet secretary, and thank you for your time at committee this morning.

It is envisaged that there will be a deadline for applying to the scheme. How flexible will that deadline be? Will there be reasonable grounds for accepting late applications?

The cabinet secretary will have seen the correspondence from women that raises the issue of the in-betweeners, or those who started the process by pursuing surgery themselves. How will they be accommodated and supported?

The Scottish Commission on Social Security suggested that a recipient who then

“applies for ADP might well be protected by the non-discrimination provision of the European Convention on Human Rights.”

I am just asking what your view is on that. Has legal advice been sought? If you do not have the information to hand, you could certainly pass it on to the committee, or you could write to me later.

I share the concerns that have been raised by Pam Duncan-Glancy about the capacity that is available to SCOSS to scrutinise properly, and I wanted to put that on record.

Mr Balfour has kind of asked my question regarding short-term assistance, but how different are the criteria between CDP and ADP?

Regarding access to short-term assistance payments, the Scottish Commission on Social Security suggested that

“the CDP claimant who applies for ADP might well be protected by the non-discrimination provision of the European Convention on Human Rights.”

What is your view on that? Has legal advice been sought about it?

I would welcome feedback on that.

Given the pressure on NHS boards for remobilisation, is the cabinet secretary confident that the timescales for the recommendations being taken forward can be met?