Chamber and committees

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?

I want to draw together a lot of what we have been talking about this morning. We have had a wide-ranging discussion, but we have focused particularly on finance, which is only right when we are talking about funding. We have been talking about fair funding principles for some time now, and we have been talking about parity of esteem and respect in the sector for a long, long time.

Euan, you mentioned the fact that other mechanisms could be looked at to embed a fairer funding principle and that they would not necessarily cost money, because it would be all about changing the structures. What are some of those mechanisms, and how might we move forward on those issues?