Chamber and committees

Good morning to the panel, and thank you for joining us today.

I will start with a question on temporary exemptions. Rob Dickson, do you think that the system that governs temporary exemptions from the licensing regime for major events is working as expected? I believe that the City of Edinburgh Council wanted to create such a scheme for the festival. Where are we today with the legislation? How do you think it is working?

Thank you. We have already touched on planning permissions around existing homes and short-term lets outwith control areas. In your opinion, given where we are with the new regulations, is there a way of resolving the matter by tweaking the system that has been put in place to make the policy work?

I do not want us to focus only on Edinburgh, but I will, as an Edinburgh MSP. There is obviously a major events issue that the legislation has come up against, which is our festival. Are there ways of developing specific exemptions, such as the ones that you have submitted to the committee, to provide for that as well as for the health and safety element, which is what the Scottish Government originally said the legislation was about?

Like Pam Duncan-Glancy, I will start my closing speech by referring to Willie Rennie’s speech, as he made a fair and honest assessment of where we find ourselves today. I believe that the Minister for Social Security and Local Government is one of the more thoughtful ministers in the Government, but it has been in office for 16 years and what we have heard today has been the usual SNP and Green press office lines—same difference, I suppose—of blaming Westminster and the DWP. We have also heard the line “Everyone is talking Scotland down” and the claim that we are using Social Security Scotland staff, not praising them—in this case, SNP and Green members want to use them as a human shield. We need to rise above that, however, and to look towards what needs to be a system that delivers for the people of Scotland.

As I have said in every single debate since being given my present role in the Parliament, it is in all our interests to ensure that Social Security Scotland is a success and is able to deliver for the people of Scotland and for future Governments, which will want it to do that, too. Parliament has a crucial role to play in holding both the institution of Social Security Scotland and the SNP-Green Government to account in ensuring that transparency is delivered. It is concerning that Parliament was only given sight of the updated social security programme and business case just one day before the debate. That has not given us time to be able to play that role.

Looking at the motion that ministers have brought today, I think that we need a more honest discussion over the many and increasing number of challenges, which the Scottish Government acknowledges, facing Social Security Scotland.

Oliver Mundell gave an excellent speech: it is important to understand that MSPs from across the chamber will be hearing complaints from constituents about the service that they are receiving, about the delay to payments and about the fact that ministers have not kept their promises about what Social Security Scotland would deliver for people across Scotland.

Despite claims by SNP and Green ministers that all is well, the transitional arrangements are not going well. The fact that DWP and UK ministers are now having to provide contingencies and extensions to agency agreements to support the on-going delivery of welfare payments in Scotland demonstrates where we are and the fact that ministers have not delivered. Promises made by SNP ministers on the establishment and capabilities of Social Security Scotland have come and gone, often with elections, when they have said that those promises would be kept.

Rhoda Grant made a number of good points. It is clear that the days of virtue signalling by the SNP-Green Government have been replaced with the cold reality of having to deliver on a plan that will now have to run until 2025 to fulfil the agreements that have been made.

Meghan Gallacher and other members have stated the honest fact that ministers told the people of Scotland that they would establish an independent country in 18 months, yet they have failed to deliver a social security system more than a decade since having the powers to do so. That is despite promises that the new system would be in place by 2021. I was on many panels with members of the Government who said that that would happen.

Audit Scotland has been clear—this is an important part of today’s debate—about the concern that it continues to express around the “challenging” delivery timescales. I think that that is still the case today—I doubt that it thinks that things will be delivered by 2025.

Any Government body or quango must be fully transparent. The Scottish people rightly expect us as a Parliament to make sure that resources that are being spent on social security are managed effectively and that, ultimately, they deliver value for money for the Scottish taxpayer. That is important. However, this Government’s record is not good in that area.

Let us look at the facts. The number of complaints against Social Security Scotland has increased by more than 400 per cent since 2018; the SNP Government has missed deadlines for transferring benefits since 2020; and—this is one of the points that has been missed in the debate—it has handed back the severe disablement allowance to the DWP because it sees no advantage in Social Security Scotland delivering it.

We should have been looking at those issues in more detail. Why has the organisation been unable to deliver benefits on time? That is a crucial issue. Without robust data, it will become more and more difficult to make comparisons, and for the Parliament and its committees to carry out the critical role of effectively scrutinising Social Security Scotland and, indeed, whether the new welfare payments, which all parties have supported, are delivering the key outcomes that we all want to see achieved. The key one, as a number of members have mentioned, is lifting children out of poverty.

As I said, no doubt MSPs across the chamber are receiving complaints. Just this morning, I dealt with constituents who have become tired of their phone calls not being answered. They are giving up. Therefore, I do not think that we even have a real estimate of the extent to which people are giving up on the system. That is concerning—ministers have acknowledged the issue in committee—and we need to see things improve.

The future financial sustainability of new benefit payments is another critical issue that has been raised by a number of members. By the end of this session of Parliament, more than £700 million will be spent on new welfare payments. Where will that come from? How will it be paid for? We need to find that out.

I hope that the debate has presented Scottish Government ministers with a bit of a reality check. They probably hoped that the debate would be an opportunity to pat themselves on the back. Their pledges around Social Security Scotland delivery timescales have been broken. Making sure that Social Security Scotland can deliver should be the focus of everyone’s attention in Parliament.

Ministers say that they want a system that delivers dignity, fairness and respect. I agree. However, members on the Conservative benches also want a system that delivers on time. I support the amendment in the name of Jeremy Balfour.

Ministers were clear that no one in Scotland would lose out in relation to the winter fuel payment, but it is now clear that rural communities across Scotland are losing out. Communities including Braemar and Aboyne, which Maggie Chapman represents but did not mention, will now be out of pocket. Does the minister regret that?

Audit Scotland also made it clear that it had real concerns around the challenging timescales. Has the minister reflected on those concerns?

I want to focus my speech on the housing crisis and the homelessness emergency in Scotland. I could not believe that the finance secretary did not mention housing or homelessness once in his speech—he had more to say about peatland restoration than about the housing emergency that we face.

Figures that were released this week show that as at 30 September 2022, 28,944 open homelessness cases were recorded in Scotland, which is the highest figure since records began in 2002, and an 11 per cent rise on the previous year.

I am disappointed that the Deputy First Minister is leaving the chamber.

In a written answer to me on the time that children in Scotland are spending in temporary accommodation, I learned that Scottish Government data shows that 447 households that include children in their homelessness application have spent more than three years living in temporary accommodation. Let that sink in for a minute: under this Government, in Scotland today, children and their families are living in bedrooms in former guesthouses for three years or more. If that is the progressive pathway that the Deputy First Minister outlined, I want nothing to do with it.

Hundreds of Scotland’s children are spending years in that sort of accommodation, which will have a hugely detrimental impact on their physical and mental wellbeing. This Parliament should be doing something about that, but we are not.

The numbers are getting worse. In the past year, there has been a 10 per cent increase in the number of children living in such conditions. SNP and Green ministers cannot continue to fail to act, and making cuts to the housing budget is not going to help. Our young people are paying the price for the SNP-Green Government’s inaction.

Last week, the Scottish Conservatives called on the Scottish Government to declare a housing emergency, but ministers failed to act. It is deeply concerning that the budget once again seeks to target the housing budget for significant cuts, at the very time when pressures on our housing system are increasing, especially here in the capital.

As Shelter Scotland says in the briefing that it issued ahead of today’s debate:

“The Scottish Government often talks about living up to the preventative ambitions outlined in the Christie Commission, yet failing to adequately invest in social housing simply damages health and education, and will leave children trapped in temporary accommodation for longer periods of time and cost the government more in the long-term.”

Michelle Thomson really should consider what she is about to vote for, because SNP and Green members will very soon be asked to vote to cut the housing budget by 16 per cent—£113 million. I am not sure how she thinks that will have a positive impact, but I would say that those members need to think twice about supporting the budget later today.

I agree with Michelle Thomson that increasing the supply of social housing in Scotland is crucial if we are to address the housing emergency. Developing new and sustainable tenancies with the housing sector is also critical if we are to deliver the tenancies that people who are homeless or are in a housing emergency need.

However, we are not seeing that happen. We need the Government to find solutions. That requires funding that is adequate to ensure that enough homes are delivered to reduce housing need and get people permanently out of temporary accommodation. Charities such as Shelter and Crisis that work day in and day out to end homelessness are clear about the impact of the cut to the housing budget; they say that it could derail the Scottish Government’s ability to reduce housing need in this parliamentary session.

Just as with the drugs death crisis, SNP ministers do not seem to understand the growing need for direct emergency action to address the housing emergency in our country. I think that, in years to come, we will see them come to the chamber to acknowledge that, but I say today that this is when we should be taking action, not cutting budgets. The decision that has been taken by the SNP and the Greens to cut the affordable housing supply programme at the very time when we are seeing significant increases in homelessness is wrong, and the policies that have been pushed—especially by Green MSPs—in Parliament recently are also undermining the potential for the private rental market to address homelessness and deliver homes for people here in the capital and across Scotland.

As far back as January 2022, concerns were being raised here in Edinburgh with regard to the capital losing out on £9.3 million of homelessness funding due to a bureaucratic anomaly. I raised those issues with the cabinet secretary several times in Parliament, but no more action was taken to address that. More resources must be given to Scotland’s cities. Glasgow and Edinburgh are at the epicentre of the homelessness crisis, so they need the necessary resources.

At the election, all parties pledged that we would work to end homelessness during this session of Parliament. After this week’s shocking figures, that pledge looks unachievable without a totally new approach from the Scottish Government.

To conclude, I return to an issue that I have consistently raised in previous budget debates, but which ministers continue to fail to engage on or act to reform—the underfunding of the City of Edinburgh Council and of NHS Lothian. We receive the lowest level of funding per head of population for our council and our health board. That is driving many of the crises that my constituents face and a lack of opportunities to find solutions. Edinburgh deserves a fair funding deal, but it is clear that, after 16 years in office, the SNP Government is content to continue to short-change the communities that I represent. That is not fair and it must change.

The Scottish Government’s budget documents price inflation for the building sector at 17 per cent, which I know the member is aware of. Why, therefore, is the capital investment budget being cut at a time when investments are most desperately needed?

I was interested in Paul McLennan’s questions on flexibilities that have been called for in the fiscal framework. How do witnesses see funding roles and agreements between local government and central Government around that changing to provide that flexibility? Kirsty Flanagan touched earlier on the fact that, although Government says that you have the right to decide your local priorities and the spend that will be allocated to them, it is clear that that is not the case in relation to policy commitments that you have to deliver.

Thanks. Robert, do you want to come in on that, as you are leading on it?