Chamber and committees

I thank Martin Whitfield for his intervention and for the point that he raises, which is important and relevant. I think that I said in my remarks that, for those outside the chamber, there is a need for certainty and for understanding about the things that they want to see in the bill that will enhance it, and there is a need to ensure that people are given adequate protection. That is a very clear point, and I am sure that the Government will want to reflect on that more widely in our proceedings today.

I believe that amendment 15 is important and that it will push the Government to ensure that the moratorium is enacted and consulted on widely. I press the amendment.

Amendment 16 is similar to an amendment that I lodged at stage 2. I took time to reflect on the process at stage 2 before lodging this amendment.

Amendment 16 would grant ministers the power, if it were to be deemed necessary, to make regulations requiring local authorities that are pursuing debt to take certain actions prior to taking any debt recovery action. That could include directing an individual towards free debt, money and legal advice before a summary warrant is granted by a sheriff.

Members across the chamber will know that public debt and, in particular, council tax arrears, has been a growing problem in Scotland and across the United Kingdom. Unlike private debt, it is not covered by Financial Conduct Authority regulations, which compel lenders to take measures to ensure that debtors are treated more fairly and with consideration to vulnerabilities. A 2023 report by Aberlour Children’s Charity highlighted that 55 per cent of low-income families in Scotland that were in receipt of universal credit had at least one deduction from their monthly income to cover debts to public bodies. Another recent report from StepChange found that, in 2021 and 2022, 32 per cent of its clients were in arrears with their council tax. It cannot be right that public bodies and local authorities are on their way to becoming the largest collectors of debt.

Debt collection practices across local authorities vary widely and, in some instances, can be viewed as problematic and quite callous. Examples of that have been relayed in the chamber before, such as the collection of school meals debt by sheriff officers. It is clear that the same level of protection and regulation that often applies to private debt is not there. We seek better practice and more support for individuals, which we are not seeing currently.

I understand from my engagement with Tom Arthur when he was in the role and from my engagement with the current minister that work is on-going with local authorities and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on such matters. Indeed, pilot programmes have been conducted and work has been done with third sector organisations such as Citizens Advice Scotland to improve that landscape. I know that that work is under review and that the Scottish Government has not yet decided whether regulations would be the best way to deal with those issues. However, I do not want us to be back in the chamber in six months or a year after the Government has considered all that and for us to conclude that regulations are needed. We do not want to miss the boat on that legislation.

Amendment 16 seeks to create a regulatory space now, without requiring ministers to use the provisions immediately, so that they can continue their on-going consultation work and engagement around need as well as exploring the best path forward for regulations. The Government could then bring forward regulations when it is necessary. I am pleased that my amendment has the support of stakeholders such as Citizens Advice Scotland, Aberlour Children’s Charity and the Govan Law Centre. I look forward to hearing from the minister on the record about the Scottish Government’s thinking on public debt and pre-action requirements. I hope that he can find his way to backing my amendment 16.

I move amendment 16.

I thank the minister and Murdo Fraser for their contributions to the debate and for the questions that were posed to me on amendment 16. There is a degree of consensus about our concern around the tactics that public sector bodies sometimes employ and, indeed, the growing scale of public sector debt and the challenge therein.

Mr Fraser asked why the amendment singles out local authorities, which is a point that was made at stage 2 by his colleague, Brian Whittle. The answer is that local authorities hold the lion’s share of that public sector debt in a local way and are using those very concerning tactics that I mentioned in relation to things such as school meals debt, council tax arrears and various other sundry debts that come under councils. They have the power to act and take different approaches, and I think that we have seen that.

That also relates to the minister’s point. There is something of a postcode lottery—if I can use that expression—or a variance in the approaches that are taken by local authorities across Scotland, which is proving to be challenging. For example, pilot projects in Tayside, and Dundee City Council, working with Aberlour, as I mentioned, have taken different approaches to the principles that they follow in collection of debt. They have worked intensively with debtors in order to get them the support that is required.

That brings me to the broader point where we have agreement—certainly, I have agreement with the minister—on the need to support local authorities and public bodies to take as many pre-actions as are required in order to support people to be good citizens and, of course, to pay their debt where that is owed, in a way that helps them to maximise their income and get all the support that they are entitled to.

In response to the minister’s point about respect for local authorities, as a former councillor of 10 years’ standing, I have huge respect for local authorities and the decisions that they make. However, it is important to note that the amendment has changed in nature since stage 2. At stage 2, it would have compelled local authorities in a more direct way. The minister, Tom Arthur, and I had an exchange of a similar nature in committee on the stage 2 amendment, which was far more directive and required the Government to direct local authorities. Amendment 16 would simply allow Scottish ministers, if required, to make those regulations. Obviously, we would want to see a huge degree of consultation and discussion before bringing forward any powers. That is why I drafted amendment 16 in this way at stage 3.

Mr Fraser asked about my interactions with COSLA. I will be honest about the fact that my discussions have been with individual local authority leaders on some of those issues, rather than with COSLA more directly. Those leaders share the concerns about the postcode lottery that I talked about and agree that, where there is best practice in an authority, that should be replicated across the country. The minister has said that he intends to develop that work and move it forward, but we should have that power, if it is required, on the statute book. On that basis, I press amendment 16.

We have had a particularly constructive and helpful debate on the group of amendments and the issues that are raised therein. The minister perhaps summed it up when he spoke about the pressures that still exist given the volatile period that we have had with inflation and the uncertainty for people across the country in dealing with the cost of living. The amendments in the group seek to ensure that those who are in debt and are being pursued for that debt are given the right support to protect their incomes and the balances in their accounts, particularly where they are in receipt of social security.

I heard what the minister said about his view and the Government’s view of the provisions in the Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Act 2022 and the work that has already been done to increase the minimum balance. I recognise his view that there is a provision in that act that will enable him and the Government to vary that as required. On that basis and given the assurance from the minister, I will not press amendment 17.

We have also had an important discussion about Colin Smyth’s amendments in the group, which seek to ensure that there is more detail on protecting those balances. I welcome the minister’s interaction and collaboration with Colin Smyth in relation to amendment 10, which will require the Scottish ministers to fully consult on and test the principles, as Colin Smyth outlined. I also welcome the commitment that the minister made today to bring forward by two years the earnings arrestment levels, to look at them in far more detail far sooner than would otherwise have been the case, and to do that in the constructive way that he set out to Parliament.

On Maggie Chapman’s amendment 24, again, we understand and respect the principle and where it comes from. We would point to Colin Smyth’s work on amendment 10, but also to some of the concerns that have been expressed about devolved competence and the adverse effect that there might be if the restrictions were added to the 1987 act. Although I understand the principle and would support it, we have to be a little careful there.

It was important to have the debate on the group so that we can move forward in a constructive way with the Government, which I hope we will when we vote on the amendments.

Amendment 17, by agreement, withdrawn.

I do not think so. The issue has been well covered.

The discussion so far has been interesting. We have touched on the importance of intersectionality when it comes to human rights. Do you want to expand on that and on why it is crucial that we reflect on the bill with that at the forefront of our minds? Would you like to add anything on the need for an intersectional approach?

The point about the Equality Act 2010 is interesting, and the interaction between the bill and the 2010 act will be relevant. It would be interesting to get your view on that, Stephanie. Specifically, I note that the Equality and Human Rights Commission had raised some concerns about overlap. The bill mentions inclusive communication. How does that interact with the need for reasonable adjustments, as set out in the 2010 act, and is it blurring the lines in relation to what each piece of law should do? It would be good for the committee to hear your view on that.

Are those targets non-negotiable? Is the cabinet secretary still committed to meeting those child poverty targets?

I am pleased to open the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour and to confirm that we will support the general principles of the bill at decision time.

It is important that we acknowledge at the outset the principles of the bill, which are to improve people’s experiences of Social Security Scotland, to ensure value for money in the system and to ensure that the system evolves and does not become stagnant. We welcome many of the actions in the bill, including those that will ensure that the Scottish child payment is on a statutory footing and those that develop the framework for new benefits such as care experience assistance. We will support changes to our social security system in Scotland that continue to support people to live in dignity and free from poverty, because that aspiration is shared across the Parliament.

It is no secret that I and my colleagues have often been persistent in our critique and in holding the Government to account for many of the challenges that have been experienced in the roll-out of social security in Scotland. It is five years since Social Security Scotland was created and there have been a number of issues, including overspends on information technology infrastructure, the unacceptably long processing times for claims for many benefit payments and the long waiting times for clients who have called Social Security Scotland. As we have recognised in the chamber, long waiting times have meant, tragically, that more than 100 people have died while waiting for their adult disability payment claims to be processed. They were denied the payments that they were entitled to.

It is clear to me that there are many lessons to be learned and many improvements that we can make. We will continue to scrutinise every detail and action of the Government and the relevant bodies in the devolved social security system as they continue to evolve and develop.

In the vein of being constructive in my criticism, and in the spirit of the partnership working that the cabinet secretary said in her opening speech that she aspires to, I also want to highlight the successes of Social Security Scotland. The Scottish child payment has been a welcome evolution in the landscape, and Labour members have been proud to support it from its inception and through its development. Recently, the Social Justice and Social Security Committee has been taking evidence on its impact, and I am pleased to see the qualitative reports on the impact that it is having on some families, while recognising that there are calls for caution on the quantitative analysis, with the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and others pointing out that we still need more data. I hope that the Scottish Government has heard those calls for better data so that we can continue to scrutinise and make improvements in the system.

I also hope that, in her concluding remarks, the cabinet secretary will be able to say something about the improvements that we can make to the Scottish child payment. As I have said, we welcome its being put on a statutory footing, but it would be good to understand what further work the Government is doing as we move to put it on a statutory footing. That also goes for any potential new benefits, such as care experience assistance. We want to get a sense of where, potentially, the Government will consult in the future and what plans it has to develop that benefit.

On the other provisions in the bill—which is as imperfect as all bills are at stage 1—I know that the cabinet secretary will seek to work across parties to make improvements throughout stages 2 and 3. Indeed, the committee’s stage 1 report highlighted some of the concerns that we heard in evidence and some of the challenges that were put to the Government. We have already heard the cabinet secretary speak about section 6 of the bill and many of the challenges that were raised on how the audit process might affect more vulnerable individuals. It is welcome that the Government has taken cognisance of the evidence that was heard. As the bill progresses, we will continue to work to ensure that we improve those provisions.

We also heard about new regulations that are still not within the scope of scrutiny of the Scottish Commission on Social Security. That is of concern. We all know that SCOSS provides a vital body of expert scrutiny on the development and implementation of new payments and regulations, so it is important that we continue to empower it to scrutinise and to ensure that the right decisions are made for those who access social security payments.

Other changes to the bill will be needed. Many of our third sector and anti-poverty organisations have outlined those in the briefing material that they provided in advance of the debate. I know that the cabinet secretary and her officials also have thoughts on amendments that are required. It would be helpful to know the direction of travel and the areas of priority for the Government as soon as possible, so that we can work together.

Scottish Labour will engage with all ideas for the bill that can further enhance social security in Scotland, to ensure that it will live up to the promise of dignity, fairness and respect. I hope that the bill is a positive development that will move us in the right direction and ensure that our systems continue to bed in. Assuming that its general principles are agreed to at stage 1 this evening, I look forward to its development as it progresses.

I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of her statement.

When Scottish Labour left office in 2007, we had brought down relative child poverty after housing costs, from 31 per cent to 24 per cent, and the previous UK Labour Government lifted 1 million children out of poverty. After 17 years of an SNP Government since then, the relative child poverty rate is still at 24 per cent—it is static—yet the figures appear to be hailed as a success in today’s statement. That is a particular indictment on the party in government, which has made a virtue of bold rhetoric on eradicating child poverty, yet has failed to make progress under successive leaders.

Members will not hear any complaint from me on the point that the Tories have been a disaster for working families. It is clear that people will have a chance to pass their verdict on the Tory Government in a number of weeks, but the Scottish Government must answer for its policies here today.

The number for in-work poverty has risen from 51 per cent to 70 per cent in the past 17 years. Would the Government therefore recognise that we need a new deal for working people? We need to make work pay. We need to ensure that people have their rights at work, so that we can lift more children out of poverty. On the poverty targets, which I did not hear very much about from the cabinet secretary today—