Chamber and committees

Amendment 17 proposes that the protected minimum amount of bank account arrestment be uprated annually if the Scottish ministers deem it to have materially fallen below the inflation level. The Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Act 2022 amended the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987 to allow the Scottish ministers to vary the minimum protected balances by way of negative procedure. There is an opportunity to strengthen that power in order to provide more protection for vulnerable individuals who are dealing with bank account arrestment proceedings. When that legislation was passed in 2022, I do not think that any of us could have foreseen the huge spikes in inflation that have come our way in the intervening period.

Although I recognise that the existing power allows ministers to deal with sudden changes that will require them to alter minimum protected balances—that regulatory power will remain—my amendment 17 opens up a conversation about whether, in a period of volatile inflation, when the cost of living continues to increase, consideration needs to be given to more regular upratings.

That is not a novel idea. We do that across a number of issues, not least social security payments. We recognise that people who are in receipt of those payments are often vulnerable and need their payments to keep pace with inflation.

Given that, amendment 17 would create a regular requirement for the Scottish ministers to calculate the inflation-adjusted level by the end of each financial year. If they deemed the existing protected balance to be materially below that inflation-adjusted level, they would lay regulations to change the amount. That would ensure that the uprating of vital minimum protected balances would not just be done on an ad hoc basis, as and when ministers were motivated to do that, but that there would be a process for modest but nonetheless important uplifts to those minimum balances on an annual basis, if need be. That would provide greater security and protection to vulnerable individuals who are going through debt collection and who are subjected to bank account arrestment, by ensuring that inflation cannot eat away at the protection that they are already being afforded. That is an important safeguard.

I am pleased that amendment 17 has won the backing of stakeholders. I look forward to hearing the minister’s response, because I know that he has given wider consideration to the issue and I am sure that he will want to comment further.

I will make a brief comment on other amendments in the group. The underlying principle of my amendment 17 is to guarantee more protections for vulnerable debtors, so I welcome the amendments from my colleague Colin Smyth and from Maggie Chapman, which run along similar lines. I look forward to hearing from them on the detail of their amendments and on the difference that they will make to people who find themselves in very vulnerable situations.

I move amendment 17.

On Tuesday, the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice stood where the Deputy First Minister is and delivered the annual update on progress to tackle child poverty. We know that levels of child poverty in Scotland have been stagnant for 17 years and that, on many measures, they have increased.

The cabinet secretary said:

“our action is making a difference.”—[Official Report, 4 June 2024; c 11.]

At the same time as that statement, the Poverty and Inequality Commission released its annual scrutiny report, which, in relation to the Government’s actions, said:

“Limited progress has been made ... over the last year ... Progress in other areas is slow or not evident at all”

and

“without immediate and significant action, the Scottish Government will not meet the 2030 targets.”

The cabinet secretary told me that the Government is committed to those targets. Does the Deputy First Minister agree with the commission’s analysis of her Government’s actions, and will the Government meet those targets?

It is a pleasure to close this debate on behalf of Scottish Labour.

As we heard from my colleague Daniel Johnson, Labour members have sought to support the aims and principles of the bill. We have heard from members across the chamber that the bill is technical, but I think that it has the scope to make a real impact on many of the challenges that exist in the area. As we know, there is much more to be done.

I join colleagues in thanking Ivan McKee and the previous minister, Tom Arthur, for their stewardship of the bill and the way in which they have engaged. I also thank their officials.

A lot of our debate this afternoon has rightly been taken up with thinking about those in our society who are vulnerable and who, because of the debt that they face or other factors, deserve support to escape those problems and get on to a more stable footing. It is very important that that is approached with compassion.

That is why there has been such strong support for a mental health moratorium on debt recovery actions. We have heard that roundly across the chamber and, indeed, calls for the provisions to be as strong as possible. I was successful in securing an amendment to change “may” to “must”; that small change is important because it shows the intent in the legislation that that must happen and the will of Parliament in supporting it.

We know that the regulations have been drafted and brought forward by the minister, so we hope that the moratorium will continue to progress and come into effect in the near future. However, there are concerns remaining about the strength of those regulations and the protections that will be provided by that moratorium. Those concerns have been outlined by Maggie Chapman, Daniel Johnson and other members.

We know that many organisations, such as Citizens Advice Scotland, have called for the inclusion of protections from eviction or repossession from on-going liabilities. We have also heard, in the exchange involving my colleagues Claire Baker and Colin Smyth, about the need to do more to create a process that would enable access for those who lack capacity. It is clear that there is still time to address those concerns before regulations go through the necessary parliamentary scrutiny. I hope that the minister recognises the concerns of members as well as those of stakeholders, and that he will reflect on some of those in his closing speech and as the bill progresses.

More broadly, beyond the moratorium, we know that the bill could have gone further in many places and could have been stronger. The Economy and Fair Work Committee made a number of recommendations to the Government at stage 1 that have not been taken forward. However, there is the opportunity for further work and dialogue in that regard.

Overall, the bill is an improvement on the status quo. We should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good and the enemy of progress when the scale of the debt problem that Scottish families face is as large as it is. Every positive measure, however small, goes some way in helping them just a little bit more than they are currently being helped.

This is not necessarily the end of the line. There is scope to strengthen and support protections in enhanced regulations or better working practices. We should continue to engage and learn from third sector organisations. We are all grateful for the contribution that such organisations—not least Advice Talks, which Colin Smyth mentioned, Citizens Advice Scotland and Aberlour Children’s Charity—have made in the process. In speaking to the amendments, I mentioned the innovative work that has been done, such as in the Tayside pilot that is run by Aberlour, which provides wraparound support to families in problem debt. We should all engage with such organisations where we can.

To conclude, people have been pushed further into debt in this cost of living crisis. The Money and Pensions Service has estimated that 700,000 people in Scotland are at risk of being in, or are already in, problem debt. We know that those people cannot afford to wait for the perfect solution to come along. We need to use the bill’s provisions to benefit those people. I hope that we will continue to engage on all of these issues, not least the mental health moratorium, in order to try to make as much change as we can.

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.

I want to take time to reflect on the debate that we have had this afternoon, which has helpfully shown the consensus on the bill, as well as pointed to some of the challenges that exist and the work that will need to be done at stage 2 and stage 3 to ensure that we have the best possible bill. The bill will amend the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018, and we need to take the opportunity to progress the shared ambition of treating people with dignity and respect.

Colleagues have recognised the technical nature of the bill. In evidence to the committee, we heard it reflected that people often found it difficult to engage with some of the bill’s principles, because of their technical nature. Collette Stevenson, the committee convener, clearly outlined that in her speech, helpfully covering what we heard in evidence and the areas in which people want further work to be done. She reflected the need for accessibility and consistency that we heard from a number of people, particularly those who have lived experience of the system, which has been useful in focusing our minds before we come to the later stages of the bill.

I take this opportunity to thank all those who contributed evidence during stage 1, particularly people who use the system. They all had something to contribute to our process, and I know that they will be keen for amendments to be lodged as the bill progresses.

A number of speakers have raised the importance of the statutory footing of the Scottish child payment and the framework that will be created for new benefits for care-experienced people, particularly care leavers. Maggie Chapman spoke about that in her opening contribution. It is important that people who are care experienced have their voices heard in relation to not just the framework but the processes that we will take forward in order to develop the benefits. That has been true of the Scottish child payment and it will be true of the work on childhood assistance.

It has been helpful for organisations such as the Child Poverty Action Group to provide briefings and give evidence on what more could be done to improve the Scottish child payment. Some of the arguments that Bob Doris prosecuted on issues such as tapering and avoiding cliff edges, and on what further work we can do to enhance the benefit, were well made and very much reflect what we heard in evidence.

CPAG’s suggestions in advance of stage 2 cover issues such as how we define a child who would be in receipt of payments and the backdating of payments. It is important that all parties look at those issues in some detail ahead of stage 2 and beyond.

It is important to reflect on some of the contributions that were made on determinations and redeterminations of assistance. Marie McNair brought to the fore some of the issues that we heard in committee. A number of organisations across Scotland have thoughts on how we might improve that process to ensure that everyone has their redetermination carried out in an appropriate and fair way.

We heard quite a number of important points about audit and about supporting vulnerable people to be protected and taken out of audit processes. The cabinet secretary might have more to say on that in her summing up.

As I have said already, Scottish Labour will support the bill at stage 1. We see this as an opportunity to push forward to ensure that fairness is at the heart of social security in Scotland. We look forward to the scrutiny that will come at stage 2 and stage 3 to ensure that we get the best possible bill.

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—