Chamber and committees

I note what Mr Balfour said in his contribution. More widely, I note that the pension age winter heating payment is a benefit that has been created under powers that have been newly devolved to the Parliament. We have not discussed the benefit in recent months, but we did so in the lead-up to that devolution process.

As Mr Balfour mentioned, we must also acknowledge the context of the decision to extend the benefit only to people who are in receipt of pension credit, and the Scottish Government’s agreement to that rule. I have said that it is for the Parliament, and this committee, to continue to work on the new benefit. It is fair that they should decide what any new benefit in Scotland should look like. It is appropriate that such a discussion should be had. I think that all members across the Parliament are willing to come together and debate the relevant criteria.

However, we must recognise, too, that regulations have not yet been introduced. The Government has intimated its intention to pass the benefit back for a temporary period of a year, in order to deliver it to people who are in receipt of pension credit. We have not yet seen regulations or held a debate on that. I have not yet been able to scrutinise and understand Social Security Scotland’s system, to learn why it cannot deliver a different one and why the handing back has had to happen. We must recognise where we are on that.

It is fair to say that we must consider several issues affecting how the benefit could best be delivered and what changes there might be. Mr Balfour has proposed two enabling benefits in this area. More widely, more work needs to be done—for example, on how pension credit and housing benefit interact, and on what decisions and outcomes might arise from any future fiscal events at UK level.

I understand why Mr Balfour has lodged amendment 5. It is important that, as a committee and as a Parliament, we consider the benefit in a Scottish context. However, there are unanswered questions around his proposal, not least in terms of who the benefit would reach, the cost, how the rules would be applied and whether the system could deliver the benefit that he seeks.

Given that we have a period of a year before the benefit is enacted and will be carried by Social Security Scotland, I consider that it would be wise for us to consider it in the round. I do not reject his proposal out of hand, but I think it important that we have further scrutiny and debate. Stage 3 could be an appropriate point to continue that process.

Amendment 105 would introduce the ability for assistance to be backdated where applicable. The power would allow Social Security Scotland to award entitlement in a range of circumstances that were not foreseen in the 2018 act and the subsequent regulations.

I am pleased that the amendment has the support of the Child Poverty Action Group in Scotland. Evidence from CPAG in Scotland’s early warning system highlights that individuals can lose out on money that they would have been entitled to had they applied earlier, because entitlement cannot be backdated to a date before an application was received.

I believe that members will have received examples of where that is relevant in the briefing for stage 2 that CPAG produced. Some of those scenarios are: delayed applications in relation to a Scottish child payment being dependent on an individual receiving a qualifying benefit; applications that span reaching adult or pension age; terminal illness and issues therein; and changes of circumstances between application, submission and decision for adult disability payment.

Amendment 105 seeks to speak to the principles behind the social security system, which is there to provide a safety net for the most vulnerable when they need it. The system should not have people losing out without good reason, particularly when the system responsible for the delay in accessing assistance has not been taken into account.

I recognise what the cabinet secretary said, that there can be practical implications—financial and otherwise—for the Government and Social Security Scotland to consider around the implementation of backdating. It is important, however, that we ensure that the principle of backdating is at the centre of the system. Amendment 105 would seek to do so for the situations that I referenced.

The report follows from a series of reports published by the Poverty and Inequality Commission earlier this year. Among the comments of the anti-poverty groups that responded to the programme for government were those of Save the Children, which said that there is

“nothing in this programme for government that truly shifts the dial on child poverty.”

It is also concerning that the SHERU report itself says:

“A lack of publicly available data of sufficient quality makes it very difficult for us to assess whether policies are working or not.”

Given that the Government has had to be reminded of the importance of accuracy in the model that it uses to measure progress on child poverty, and given that eradicating such poverty is the First Minister’s and the Government’s number 1 priority, is it not extremely concerning that an independent report seems to suggest that the Government does not know what is having an impact and what is not?

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to a recent report from the Scottish Health Equity Research Unit, which highlights that “Core outcomes related to inequalities and health are not improving significantly and some are getting worse”. (S6O-03747)

Would you be concerned that one commissioner would have too much to look at? Say that we had a disability commissioner who covered absolutely everything, including, I suppose, neurodiversity. I do not think that that has been fully defined yet—there is certainly disagreement on some of the definitions that were contained in the consultation on the LDAN bill. Are you concerned that that subject matter is too vast?

Also, people want a commissioner to do two things: to advocate, as you have quite rightly talked about; and to investigate. A lot of issues that came up during the LDAN bill consultation process were to do with breaches of people’s human rights, not least of which were the use of seclusion and restraint in schools. Many of those issues are faced by disabled people and their families in particular. Is dealing with all that too vast a prospect for one commissioner?

I want to pick up the issues relating to the interaction of your bill and the proposed bill on learning disabilities, autism and neurodivergence. Were I to be generous, I would say that the there is a high degree of uncertainty as to the progress that the LDAN bill will make. We do not think that it will reach fruition by the end of this session of Parliament.

There was debate about whether an LDAN commissioner or commission should be included in that proposal. Is there an opportunity to pick up some of those issues in your bill? If so, how would you deal with the diversity in that community?

I will push you on that point. People want the commissioner to have investigatory powers, and the bill has covered that aspect. However, many people are seeking justice on some of the issues that you have just raised. How would the commissioner go about doing that?

I will play devil’s advocate for a moment. You have listed—quite rightly—some of the challenges that we face: progress on the LDAN bill is being stalled, there will be no human rights bill in this session of Parliament, the £10 million of changing places funding looks like it will not go ahead, and non-residential care charges will not be abolished by the end of this session. The Government has made those decisions. You, I and others who have an interest as parliamentarians have not yet been able to change those decisions, although we continue to try, as do campaign groups and a range of stakeholders.

If we, as democratic politicians elected to hold the Government to account, have not been able to change minds at this stage, how would a commissioner do that? What would a commissioner add? There have been situations in which other commissioners have been ignored by Governments of all stripes.

I am talking about the interaction with the public sector and service provision. For example, what would make the process of reporting on your service level agreements easier?

Are there sufficient structures to have those sorts of conversations, or do we need to look at how all that is communicated?