Chamber and committees

I think that keeping the lights on is an important point—

Stephen Kerr mentioned Rishi Sunak. First, I put on record earlier my point about the man who gave working people the highest tax burden in a generation. Secondly, will Stephen Kerr take cognisance of the fact that we had 14 years of a Conservative Government, as Liz Smith rightly did, and that we are now living with the reality of the decisions that Liz Truss made in her catastrophic mini-budget?

Ben Macpherson is making a characteristically interesting and thoughtful speech. He said that devolved power is all that we have, but does he see the power of partnership between the UK Government and the Scottish Government on many of the issues that I raised in my speech, not least through some of the innovations to bring down bills and through GB Energy?

Good morning, cabinet secretary. I have a brief question to help me understand the picture on carers support payment now that case transfers are coming to an end.

At the UK level, the Chancellor of the Exchequer moved the earnings limit for the first time since 1976 and increased eligibility. The Scottish Government has replicated that approach. What reflection does the cabinet secretary have on the potential for further expansion of the earnings limit? Does she intend to pursue that within the devolved context or would that depend on the interrelationship with any further changes that the UK Government might decide to make to carers allowance? What discussions has she had about that?

I have just said that there are reforms that have not yet been consulted on. It is the Labour Government’s intention to ensure that people who want to work can access work and are supported to do so. I will say more about that in my speech.

It is important to deal in the facts about what seven months of a UK Labour Government have meant for those issues. There is no mention in the motion of the changes that have been made, such as the fair repayment rate on debt, which means that 110,000 Scottish households will be, on average, £420 a year better off because of our universal credit reforms.

There is no mention of the changes to the earnings threshold for carers allowance to allow unpaid carers to earn more while they keep their entitlements. That is the biggest change to carers allowance since 1974 and a move that the Scottish Government took weeks to confirm that it would follow.

There is no mention of the changes to statutory sick pay that were announced this week, which mean that 1.3 million of the lowest paid Britons can access sick pay from day 1 of their sickness, and that they do not have to choose between their health and earning a living. That goes alongside the UK Employment Rights Bill, which I will speak about in my contribution.

From reading the motion and listening to the opening speech in the debate, members would think that Social Security Scotland is completely flawless in this space. However, the roll-outs of adult disability payment and child disability payment have involved significantly higher processing times than their DWP equivalents have. Tragically, in 2023 alone, almost 100 people died while they were waiting for their ADP applications to be approved. More than £1 million of social security overpayments will not be recovered, which creates an unnecessary fiscal pressure. There have been significant issues setting up the agency, including a £39 million spend on information technology systems and a low staff occupancy rate at its Dundee headquarters, which has annual running costs of £1.5 million.

As the motion highlights, the spend on social security above the block grant adjustment is ever rising, which puts pressure on tax receipts in Scotland and other spending portfolios. At this morning’s meeting of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee, the cabinet secretary acknowledged—perhaps for the first time—that there is pressure on the budget and that the implications are “stark”.

I make it clear that it is legitimate for such decisions to be taken in this Parliament. My party, as the party that founded this Parliament, supports the principle of the devolution of decision making, but we cannot escape the fact that we must have a discussion about how we pay for such things. I called the debate unserious because we are not having that discussion and it is not mentioned in the motion. We must have an open and honest discussion about the purpose of social security and how we can ensure that people get the right support to get into work and to arrive at true and meaningful positive destinations.

I am happy to try to inject some nuance into the debate by saying that the positive steps that I have outlined that the Labour Government has taken so far must be coupled with further reform work. That is why the reform of universal credit and the UK Government’s on-going review are so important. Any changes that are made, especially those that relate to people who are in receipt of sickness benefit or who are disabled, must be geared towards investment in ensuring that people can be supported into work. Just this morning, the DWP and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions announced that 1,000 extra job coaches will be deployed in the jobcentre network to support people to get into work. Such interventions will be crucial.

I am happy to acknowledge that many challenges exist across the variety of issues that contribute to poverty in our country, but we must have a serious, grown-up and nuanced debate about how we can tackle all those facets through the social security system and access to work. It is clear to me that members of the Government party have no intention of doing that today.

Will the member accept an intervention?

Does Marie McNair accept that an important part of dignity for disabled people is ensuring that disabled people who want to access work can do so. Does she accept that simple premise?

I want to try to be generous to Marie McNair, but I would describe the motion and the debate as unserious. I say that because we are debating a motion that seeks to discuss proposed reforms to UK social security payments that have not, in fact, been announced and the detail of which none of us has seen. The proposals have appeared publicly in the press in a way that I think the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice referred to in the Social Justice and Social Security Committee this morning as “rumours”.

It is important that we look at the context of where we are right now.

Will the member take an intervention?

In my contribution, I made the point directly to the minister that, throughout the debate, he has referenced investment in Liverpool, Tyneside and Manchester. Does he not see that a lost decade cannot be overturned in seven months and that investment in every part of the UK is vitally important and is at the core of the UK Government’s agenda?