Chamber and committees

I thank Jeremy Balfour for lodging a revised version of the amendments that he lodged at stage 2. Scottish Labour supported his stage 2 amendments, because it is important that such a large and significant public body is open to the scrutiny and transparency that we all want. Although we recognise that Social Security Scotland publishes its annual accounts and gives evidence to the Parliament, parliamentarians have still struggled to get certain information, and there is no duty on Social Security Scotland to report on certain issues.

I welcome the fact that amendment 23 takes cognisance of the debate that we had at stage 2. It is more open and less prescriptive about what the indicators should include, and it would allow the Parliament to provide input on what the KPIs should look like in order to better hold the Government and the agency to account on behalf of all our constituents.

I hope that the Government and other parties recognise the desire for additional reporting and information and that the Government will either support the amendments or allow further discussion in that regard.

I am about to talk about amendment 22, which provides a power for Parliament to consider, by using secondary legislation, whether it wants to create a mechanism by which it could claw payments back from those who have higher incomes.

One reason why I lodged amendment 22 comes from the evidence that was given by the Poverty and Inequality Commission regarding the original consideration of pension age winter heating assistance. That evidence set out how the system could be fairer if a universal benefit was paid but there were options, for example through the tax system or by other methods, to take money back if required. We know that many people choose not to use their winter heating allowance or choose to give it back. The Government’s own Poverty and Inequality Commission, among others, laid out those options.

Amendments 21 and 22 simply seek to put that matter into the bill, so that we have legislation for what the Government has said that it wants to do and so that we have the option to create a claw-back mechanism by using secondary legislation, if that is what we wish to do.

As these are my first remarks during today’s proceedings, I put on record my thanks to everyone who has been involved in helping to get the bill to this stage.

I simply note that Scottish Labour will support the amendments in the group on childhood assistance. We welcome the technical fixes to the bill and, in particular, amendment 4, which will ensure the fair treatment of late applications.

I begin by reiterating the remarks that I made at the beginning of proceedings this afternoon, which have also been made by the cabinet secretary and Jeremy Balfour, in thanking all who have been involved in the bill process, not least the staff on the bill team, the committee clerks and everyone else who has been involved in ensuring the smooth progress of the legislation.

Today offers us an opportunity to reflect on the devolution of social security to Scotland and on the intervening period, taking stock of that journey and the opportunity to update the legislation that governs much of what we do on social security. In doing so, we have an opportunity to reflect on the successes, the challenges and what still has to be done to ensure that we progress with a system that works for everyone.

We, on this side of the chamber, have been very clear that there are welcome steps in the bill and that welcome things have come from the process of devolving social security. For example, the Scottish child payment was a welcome step that was supported by members on this side of the chamber. Putting it on a legislative footing and ensuring that it continues to command the support of members and wider support in Scotland allows us to affirm again our support for it. It is an example of the strength of devolution in that we are doing what it was intended to do and attempting to make progress in supporting children and families across Scotland, ensuring that the poorest in our society are better supported.

The Social Justice and Social Security Committee has had many debates about how we can better analyse and better understand the impact that policies have. I will also reflect on some of the challenges that we have seen in Social Security Scotland. I know that the cabinet secretary is not immune to those challenges, and we have debated them many times, including in various parts of today’s debate. There have been challenges in long processing times, including, most notably, real challenges in the introduction of child and adult disability payments and in people having to wait too long. We must continue to watch that very closely and take action as required.

There have also been challenges in the transfer of devolved payments, including employment injury assistance. We have debated that in other contexts, and we must keep it at the forefront of our minds as we continue to develop Social Security Scotland and consider what more we have to do in the transfer of other benefits.

I will also comment on the challenges that exist around information technology infrastructure and making sure that the system is as flexible and supportive as possible. We know that there is an overrun in IT costs, and there have been challenges with telephony, which we have debated many times in Parliament. I accept that progress is being made, but we have to continually monitor and review those processes to ensure that there is the most efficient use of public money when it comes to what we are developing in the agency. It is clear that, in some instances, the challenges continue to grow, but there has also been action to look at those issues and slowly begin to tackle them. I hope that the bill provides another stepping stone on the journey to tackling those challenges.

We have welcomed a number of the amendments, today and at stage 2, that have sought to make the bill stronger and to continue to improve the system. Today, we have had a variety of debates on new social security payments such as the pension age winter heating payment. We have had amendments that have sought to tidy up parts of the bill and parts of the system. We have had the important amendment on uprating for inflation, which puts into legislation something that will ensure that we continue to drive forward progress on the payments that are being made to people.

There were some important amendments that we did not agree to but that are worth future reflection and continued thought—on the rights of appeal and ensuring that we can build case law that is supportive of people. With regard to the issue of having key performance indicators, which Jeremy Balfour raised, it is important that we reflect clearly on how we are able to scrutinise what is being done by our national agencies, such as Social Security Scotland, and how public money is being spent.

What we require now is implementation of the legislation at pace, as well as more rapid actions to get on with resolving issues in the system that do not require any provisions in the bill.

Scottish Labour remains committed to holding the Government and Social Security Scotland accountable for the way in which social security is administered within the devolved framework and for the pledges that have been made, which have often not been lived up to. However, recognising the many positive changes that are in the bill, we will support its passing at decision time and we will continue to work with the Government and other Opposition parties to do everything that we have set out in today’s debate.

Chris, do you want to come back in on that point?

Can I expand on a point, convener?

Colleagues will come on to ask about data and aspects such as modelling. John Dickie referenced the Scottish child payment and the efforts to understand facets such as the depth of its impact. More broadly, academic work has been commissioned on that, which the committee will be interested in.

I think that there was a submission that said that targets are not without controversy and, obviously, there is a political dimension to trying to reach targets. Do you think that there is a temptation not to get into the real detail? There was the issue in relation to the 100,000 figure for keeping children out of poverty as opposed to lifting them out of poverty. There is perhaps a temptation to lean on that without understanding the depth of what lies underneath it.

Do you think that we need to do more to understand the impact that the Government’s policies are having? Do you recognise the role that the committee can play in helping to understand some of that?

Good morning. My questions develop the theme of the measures. Will you give a general comment on the advantages and disadvantages of the poverty measures that were used as targets in the 2017 act? Perhaps you can also reflect on the influence of the choice of those measures on policy. What impact do the targets have on the policies that are chosen to be explored? I appreciate that those are broad questions, but I hope that they allow you to bring up various points.

John Dickie or Hannah Randolph, would either of you like to comment on the broader point?

I want to build on what Chris Birt has said. The Poverty and Inequality Commission’s submission refers to the focus on those people who are on the cusp of the poverty line and on how there is perhaps too much focus on incomes. Professor Sinclair, would you like to touch on that? How can we take a broader approach and focus on the issue of deep poverty as well?