Chamber and committees

On large-scale events—I refer to the recent bidding process around where the Eurovision song contest would happen, for example—is the system impacting on Scotland’s potential to host large-scale one-off events and have accommodation available for them?

The committee has heard that the licensing scheme is being applied inconsistently across Scotland. I know that Highland Council and Glasgow City Council request proof of planning permission or a certificate of lawfulness as part of the licensing requirement rather than deferring to planning departments on a case-by-case basis. I understand that my local authority requires evidence of planning permission for planning control areas. Will Gary Somers and Gillian McNaught comment on the consistency of applying the legislation?

That is helpful. Thank you.

I turn to the impacts of other legislation. Parliament has just approved national planning framework 4. On short-term lets, policy 30(e)of NPF4 states that

“The loss of residential accommodation where such loss is not outweighed by demonstrable local economic benefits”

should not be permitted. What is your interpretation of NPF4 in terms of whether there is any overlap with short-term lets legislation?

That is no problem. Gary, do you want to add anything?

Good morning, and thank you for joining us. I am sorry for disturbing your holiday, Fiona. I was wondering where that painting behind you was from—the Highlands, perhaps.

I wish to ask you a couple of questions on some points that we have touched on already, and which I raised earlier, regarding the national planning framework and, specifically, guidance. We will consider legislation in the area, as well as how guidance filters down to councils and how it is interpreted. What is your current understanding of how policy 30(e) of NPF4 is being interpreted?

I put the question to Fiona Campbell first; Julia Amour may wish to add something.

Julia—do you have anything to add?

I note the specific call in your evidence for an amendment for Edinburgh during August, as well. Fiona—do you have anything to add?

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

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?