Chamber and committees

I do not think that I got an answer to the first point, about the record of a Labour Government in places such as Renfrewshire. This very week, the Labour Government will bring to the House of Commons a bill that will see a new deal for working people put on the statute book. It will end fire and rehire, end zero-hours contracts, repeal anti-trade union legislation and give people security at work. Surely, Mr Adam agrees that that is the change that people in Ferguslie Park need?

I will come on to talk about the winter fuel payment. [Interruption.] As we have heard—[Interruption.]

Hold on a minute. I am still in my opening section, and I have already had two interventions from the Government. If the Government wants to hear more about our position, the criteria that we could employ and my criticism of the Government, it would do well to listen.

I wonder whether the First Minister still wishes to make an intervention at this stage.

I will finish this point, if I may. That is disrespectful to the third sector organisations that put so much into this week and that do so much—as we have heard from many members—all year round, as they tackle the most desperate forms of poverty that our society knows.

I believe that Ms Stevenson was the first to ask, so I will take her intervention, after which I will come to the First Minister.

Mr Findlay had an opportunity there—he chose not to when I intervened on him earlier—to apologise for the way in which the previous Government conducted itself with regard to the public finances. Let us remember—let nobody in the chamber forget—that Mr Findlay is a supporter of Liz Truss, who rose her head again at the Conservative Party conference and reminded us of the carnage that was unleashed on this country by the Conservatives, so I will take no lectures from him.

The point is that the decision on winter fuel payments is undoubtedly a decision that nobody wanted to make, but I point to a number of issues that we need to speak about in the Scottish context. I remind the Scottish Government that it has decided to scrap many measures that would have supported people in fuel insecurity across this country—indeed, the fuel insecurity fund has been scrapped. The core of our amendment gets to the fact that that money has been taken away from supporting people who might need it this winter.

We know that £41 million of Barnett consequentials will come as a result of the extension of the household support fund, and we know that that money could be delivered in a different way to support people who need it this winter. It could be reprofiled and—this has been shown—used to support people in our country who really need support. However, every time I ask that question of the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government or the First Minister, it falls on deaf ears. There is no answer on why they have cut the fuel insecurity fund or on why they are not willing to consider working with Labour to utilise that £41 million.

Across the course of today’s debate, we have covered a number of issues that the UK Government is ready to act on. I thought that we had some fine speeches when we got on to those wider issues. Although we had a robust exchange, George Adam got to the point of why we are all here—to seek to serve the people in the communities that we represent. Ferguslie Park is a community that I know well. It is important that we reflect on the fact that a UK Government, within weeks of coming into office, has taken bold action to put into statute a new deal for working people that will lift people out of poverty.

We know about the pernicious nature of in-work poverty—that was outlined by John Mason in his very thoughtful contribution and by others around the chamber. We need to ensure that work pays, that it is secure and that it can lift people out of the deep, structural poverty that is increasing in Scotland. I hope that the Government will reflect on that today. It is keen to have a new relationship with the UK Government and to collaborate. I hope that it will come to the table on those issues in particular, and on the child poverty task force and all the other on-going work that the new UK Government is doing.

It is clear that today’s debate cannot be only about one issue and one motion—it has to be about a wider range of issues. It is also clear that Scottish Labour’s amendment seeks to reinstate the fuel insecurity fund and to use the Barnett consequentials that are available to ensure that, although we acknowledge that it is an extremely difficult decision, there are ways to make sure that all families are supported in Scotland, particularly those who suffer most profoundly from fuel insecurity.

Surely Rachael Hamilton recognises that what she has just said belittles the debate, which is about challenging poverty. Surely she must recognise that she must take responsibility for the actions of her party’s previous Government, which salted the earth and destroyed the British economy.

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to bring down processing times for the adult disability payment, in light of the most recent high level statistics from Social Security Scotland indicating a reversal in the previous reduction to processing times. (S6O-03797)

Members from across parties welcomed the long-overdue fall in ADP processing times earlier this year. However, it is concerning that that trend is reversing. The latest statistics show that median waits have risen by almost 24 per cent since April and are now back at more than three months. That is markedly above the original pledge for decisions to be made within eight to ten weeks—before the target was removed from the Government’s website.

Given the on-going review of recruitment at Social Security Scotland, which we have discussed before, what further assurances can the cabinet secretary give to Scotland’s disabled community that the Government is getting on top of that reversal and ensuring that waiting times across all the payments that are administered by Social Security Scotland will fall?

I asked this question on Tuesday, but I do not think that I got an answer on the additional supports that the Government offers. Why did the cabinet secretary take the decision to cut the fuel insecurity fund, which supports people, including pensioners? Why is the cold winter payment set at a standard rate in Scotland? Why has the funding for energy efficiency standards repeatedly been cut? Why has the Government failed to pass on consequentials from the household support fund? Why is that the case?

I am keen to get from Dr Tickell his view of the possibility of solving the problems that have been created.

Does Lucy Miller want to add anything on those questions? I will pivot slightly when I come to Professor O’Hagan, if that is possible.