Chamber and committees

My point was about the specific criteria for PIP and what seems to be a rebranding of that payment. We need to see where those changes will be, and the minister did not outline any of them at committee either.

We also know that the cost to Social Security Scotland of delivering benefits stands at around 10 per cent of total resources compared to 6 per cent for the DWP. Yes, it is a new organisation but, last year alone, Social Security Scotland’s overspend costs were approximately £44 million. The Parliament and members of the committees that are looking at the issue would like further clarity from the Government about how projected future expenditure will be controlled and what its plans are to plug some of the funding gaps.

It is concerning that the costs of setting up Social Security Scotland were more than triple what SNP ministers estimated, and we still have not heard any clear answers on that.

Today’s debate is also an important opportunity to highlight the need for more transparency from ministers.

The minister is saying that we have not been to Social Security Scotland.

To ask the Scottish Government how its supersponsor scheme takes account of the preferences of Ukrainian refugees regarding settlement locations within Scotland. (S6O-01138)

On budget scrutiny and future budget projections, we know that it is being projected that £760 million will be needed to fund these welfare policies by 2026. Willie Rennie, Mark Griffin and I have raised that point. When is the Scottish Government going to lay out where that money will come from and what budgets will potentially be cut? More than £250 million has been cut from local authority budgets, for example.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. The minister should apologise, because committee members who could not attend, including myself, then went to a briefing with Social Security Scotland. I think that the minister needs to correct the record.

There is growing concern that what seems to be an overly bureaucratic system has been put in place. It seems that the Syria and Afghanistan resettlement scheme that was adopted in the 32 local council areas is now being administered to Ukrainian refugees. I understand that 1,000 Ukrainians are currently living in hotels and have had no clarification of the matching process for the scheme. What consideration is being given to a single scheme that can be delivered without councils having to decide? What advice is being given to councils to ensure that the scheme is speeded up?

That is not the point that we are debating today. That was a welcome additional resource that was provided at the start of the pandemic, but we need to concentrate on what we are responsible for and we should certainly be able to discuss the £44 million overspend.

Audit Scotland clearly says that the Scottish Government is making it difficult for those of us who are responsible for it to scrutinise the costs and track them over time. The minister said that he accepts Audit Scotland’s recommendations, and I welcome that and hope that we will see action on that soon. Because of that lack of transparency, Audit Scotland is urging the Scottish Government to make those important changes now, including by publishing a new programme for the business case so that Scots can see exactly how the money is being spent. The future financial sustainability of our welfare system is vitally important, and additional costs and duplications in the system need to be fully considered as we move forward.

We all agree that, in the spirit of the Scotland Act 2016, Scotland should be able to have a unique approach to social security and one that is distinctive from the approach that is taken elsewhere in the UK. Scottish Conservatives have outlined our priorities for reform, which include the extension of bereavement support for carers and a new top-up benefit for veterans, the need for which the minister has acknowledged in committee, and I hope that the minister will engage on those.

However, there are serious budgetary concerns, and the Scottish Government needs to be clearer about its long-term vision for Social Security Scotland and the spend that that will involve, and to lay out the practical steps that it will take to make the body more transparent and accessible to the public.

I move amendment S6M-04621.1, to leave out from “notes the more” to end and insert:

“notes the implementation of a clinically determined definition of ‘terminal illness’ and fast-tracking of these applications for support; welcomes the introduction of indefinite awards within Scottish disability assistance, which provides the most severely disabled people with long-term financial security; looks forward to the introduction of new benefits, including Low Income Winter Heating Assistance and Scottish Carer’s Assistance; notes that social security is one of the three key pillars in the national mission to tackle child poverty, and commends the extension of the Scottish Child Payment to under-16s and plans to increase it to £25 per week per child by the end of the year; welcomes the substantial financial support that these benefits provide to people, which is important at all times and particularly so now as people are impacted by the cost of living crisis in the UK, and acknowledges the Scottish Government’s record investment of £3.9 billon in benefit expenditure in 2022-23, which is £360 million above that received by the UK Government, all of which will provide meaningful social security support to over one million people, including low-income families and households, disabled people and carers; is concerned that the £251 million cut to local government funding will have a knock-on effect on debt advice services, which will have a detrimental impact on low-income families and households; notes further concern at the published processing times at Social Security Scotland showing record highs, with many applications taking 30 days to process, almost double the average processing time of September 2021, which raises further concerns about how Social Security Scotland will be able to cope with the additional caseload, given that Audit Scotland forecasts that the Adult Disability Payment caseload will increase from 20,000 cases in 2022-23 to 475,000 cases by 2026-27; seeks clarification on how the Scottish Government plans to finance increased social security expenditure, with a projected extra £760 million needed by 2026; thanks the Department for Work and Pensions for its continued support in helping to deliver these benefits through agency agreements when Social Security Scotland was unable to meet its proposed timescales for delivery, and looks forward to finally having full case transfer, as agreed, by 2025.”

I am grateful to the minister for taking an intervention. Audit Scotland also stated that the implementation costs of new devolved benefits are “not routinely reported on” in the public domain, which inevitably makes it

“difficult for those in scrutiny roles to track and compare over time.”

What assessment of those comments has the minister made?

Will the member take an intervention?

The decision by the SNP-Green Government to cut more than £250 million of council funding is clearly impacting on the ability to deliver local advice services. What assessment have ministers made of the loss of advice services, because those services are so important to our fellow citizens—including in Perth and Kinross, where they might also face cuts?