Chamber and committees

The two-child limit on benefits is one of the biggest policy drivers of child poverty, according to Barnardo’s chief executive, Lynn Perry. However, Keir Starmer, the next expected Prime Minister, will not scrap that, despite former Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown recently noting that there are “obscene” levels of child poverty in the UK. Will the cabinet secretary outline how that damaging policy continues to hinder the Scottish Government’s efforts to tackle child poverty, and how much further we could go if we were an independent country?

I speak in the debate as a member of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee. I thank the committee clerks for their assistance with the production of our report.

The committee received very helpful evidence from across the third sector and from local authorities and those representing the insurance sector. I thank CPAG and the Poverty Alliance for their helpful briefings, in which they welcomed the bill and made suggestions for further consideration.

The Scottish Government has already made significant progress with the social security system by delivering 14 benefits that tackle poverty and reduce inequality. However, we can always make improvements, and that is what the bill aims to do. The bill’s main policy objective is to enhance the social security system in line with the principles that are laid out in the 2018 act. Those principles underpin our social security system, to ensure that it is based on fairness, dignity and respect. In particular, the principles require that

“opportunities are ... sought to continuously improve the Scottish social security system in ways”

that

“put the needs of those who require assistance first, and ... advance equality and non-discrimination”.

In addition,

“the Scottish social security system is to be efficient and deliver value for money.”

Throughout stage 1, I and the committee as a whole have kept those principles at the forefront of our minds in considering and reviewing the bill. It is welcome that, in general, witnesses agree that, overall, the bill aligns with those principles, with the exception of the provisions on information for audit. I welcome the cabinet secretary’s assurances on further work in that regard.

The bill has nine parts, the first eight of which are dealt with in the committee’s report. For the sake of time, I will touch on two important parts. On determinations and redeterminations, I have always been mindful of the fact that the benefits process can be confusing. The committee noted that there was scope to make

“changes ... which could help to streamline the redetermination and appeal processes for clients.”

The committee also noted that, by simplifying and streamlining the system, we can build on and better incorporate the principles, ensuring that it

“embodies fairness, dignity and respect, as well as ... providing”

better

“value for money.”

However, the committee asked that

“the Scottish Government ... consider ... suggestions made by witnesses for creating consistent deadlines for redeterminations, removing the need for an error to be identified before an appeal can be lapsed, providing a ‘cooling off’ period for withdrawing requests for redeterminations and appeals”

and

“removing the need for a redetermination stage after an appeal has lapsed”.

As a result of Covid-19, provision was introduced to allow for late applications. That is no longer needed, but it flagged important points around the need for greater flexibility to deal with late applications. The committee and I welcome the cabinet secretary’s plans to take forward investigations at stage 2 to extend the flexibility of the provision to accommodate late applications from claimants who face challenging situations. We would also appreciate the cabinet secretary’s consideration of whether further provisions for backdating could be looked into.

Overall, it is felt that the amendment has been undertaken in a way that takes account of the ethos of the 2018 act while considering developments in the social security system. It was, at times, hard to ensure that the social security principles were upheld, so the committee and I welcome further reassurance that the core principles of fairness, dignity and respect are at the heart of the provisions, including regarding information for audit.

I am glad that the committee supports the general principles of the bill, and I welcome it as a step forward in ensuring that our social security system meets our high standards and upholds our principles of fairness, dignity and respect.

SCOSS advises that a significant number of full-time student carers are expected to be eligible for the carers support payment in the final phase of the roll-out. As that is likely to put additional pressure on Social Security Scotland, are you confident that training and other support and resources will be in place to assist staff to deal with the volume of those applications?

I await the MIG report with interest.

That is helpful. Stephen Sinclair, you touched on that earlier, so I do not think that you will want to come back in. Ruth Boyle, in your submission, and just a moment ago, you suggested that the Scottish child payment could be a building block of the minimum income guarantee. In what ways could the minimum income guarantee have a greater impact on child poverty than the Scottish child payment?

Good morning, and thanks for your time. I will cover the issue of extending eligibility, which has been touched on briefly. Which changes to eligibility would have the greatest impact on reducing poverty?

Michael Matheson made a mistake and has apologised for it. He has, rightly, repaid the roaming charges in full, with no cost to the public purse. Even though the investigation has been tainted when it comes to natural justice, what is proposed is one—

No, not just now. I have just started.

What is proposed is one of the largest sanctions in the history of this Parliament. Michael Matheson has shown genuine remorse and has taken full responsibility for the serious matters that occurred. No person, regardless of their position, is immune to making mistakes, but I recognise and agree that elected members must be held to a very high standard, and I agree that Michael Matheson clearly made mistakes. This was a mistake, and he has clearly paid the price. It is not a matter over which to resign as an MSP.

If the price of a mistake is resignation, Douglas Ross should have resigned a long time ago, but we know that this motion is really—

Okay.

My apologies, Presiding Officer.

It is the usual attempt, on the part of Mr Ross, to score political points instead of making a serious contribution to this Parliament, with aggressive, shouty behaviour that he should have left in the playground. Especially evident this time is the breathtaking hypocrisy contained in his contribution—which surely even he must have been aware of.

We remember when Mr Ross reluctantly apologised for the £28,000 expenses scandal debacle. There was no offer of resignation there—just a grovelling apology.