Chamber and committees

Mr Adam is making a case that many of us—particularly those of us who come from Renfrewshire—would recognise about the real challenges that there have been in places such as Ferguslie Park. Is he really suggesting that a Labour Government that lifted a million children out of poverty and that invested in a national minimum wage for the first time, as well as in working tax credits and all the reform that we saw in that period, did nothing to help people in Ferguslie Park?

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

Yet we have not debated the actions that the Scottish Government has taken that have compounded poverty for children, families and pensioners across Scotland.

I turn to the winter fuel payment. In his contribution, Anas Sarwar very clearly outlined that the UK Labour Government did not want to take the decision that it has had to take. That was elaborated on very clearly by my colleague Michael Marra in relation to the financial reality that the new UK Government faces.

I intervened on Mr Findlay earlier to point out that the Conservatives cannot credibly take absolutely no responsibility for the mess that they left behind in the public finances. On the £22 billion of cuts, we had air quotes from Clare Adamson, which shows the breadth and depth of misunderstanding among SNP members. As Mr Marra said, that £22 billion in-year black hole is different from the structural deficit. We are talking about a situation in which the Conservatives spent reserves three times over on things such as the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill. That was not known about by the Office for Budget Responsibility or the Institute for Fiscal Studies. That is the very clear reality that we face.

The cabinet secretary does not need a miraculous intervention. She needs to read the letter from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to confirm the extension of the household support fund, and the information that came from the House of Commons library that confirms £41 million of consequentials to the Scottish budget.

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

The point that I was going to make when the cabinet secretary reached that point in her speech was about why the fuel insecurity fund was cut. She used that money previously when it came to the Scottish budget, and then she chose to cut it. That is my first point.

The second point is that the cabinet secretary talked about wanting to engage. Why will she not engage on the concept of that £41 million and talk to us about how we might deploy it to support people in fuel poverty?

Will the member take an intervention?

In closing the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour, I will return to some of the themes that we opened with. Anas Sarwar, Patrick Harvie and others opened with the Joseph Rowntree Foundation report on poverty in Scotland that was released yesterday morning. The report makes it clear that we face significant challenges on poverty in this country. As many members around the chamber have said, it is a sobering read, which makes it clear that the UK and Scottish Governments have been called on to step up and outline how they intend to go further.

Many people in the anti-poverty sector were pleased to see the Secretary of State for Scotland, Ian Murray, and the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Shirley-Anne Somerville, launch and speak about that work together. That is very much the spirit in which Scottish Labour wanted to engage in this debate on challenge poverty week.

The Scottish Government was presented with a chance to spend valuable parliamentary time debating the tangible actions that we could take across the Parliament. For example, we could have debated the asks of Shelter and Engender, which this week published research that shows how the housing emergency disproportionately impacts women. We could have debated the work of One Parent Families Scotland and other organisations that aim to empower single parents to achieve sustainable and well-paid employment. We could have debated how we might bring about a new approach to dealing with public sector debt, to help families with financial struggles, which Aberlour has called for. We could have debated those issues and many others.

However, in its motion, the Government chose a very narrow focus for the debate, which I suggest has been disrespectful to the third sector organisations—

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?

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)