Chamber and committees

No. Both my questions have been answered, so I am happy to move on.

Good morning to the panel. My questions are about the workload for assessors and valuation committees. First, will you outline your thoughts on the potential implications for that workload and the system if we allow coronavirus-related MCC appeals? I ask Alastair Kirkwood to comment first, and then Charles Golding. If anyone else wants to comment, they should type the letter R in the chat box.

I will ask a few questions on the theme of prevention and on future opportunities for the Scottish Government.

The programme for government contains plans to strengthen the law on homelessness prevention. I put on record that I often feel that people have to declare themselves homeless before any support is made available. What would panel members’ ideal model be for changing that, so that support starts earlier? For example, some ideas that have been put forward include public sector bodies having a conversation with vulnerable individuals up to six months before they face a crisis point.

I will start with Gordon MacRae, because he touched on that earlier, and I will then go around any others who want to come in.

I want to go back to a point that Gordon MacRae made earlier, with regard to Edinburgh and the east of Scotland, and specific pressures that we are seeing in our cities with regard to delivering services. Mr Balfour, Mr Choudhury and I represent Edinburgh. We see and we know from our public bodies the pressures that Edinburgh faces in delivering these services.

I wonder about potential solutions. Would you support, for example, pressured areas, such as have been developed for London, specifically, given the cost of delivering services that we have seen. Do you have other suggestions on the specific issue of cities, which you have highlighted? Gordon, I will bring in you, as I referenced you in the question.

Yes.

Perhaps we can bring in Maggie Brünjes here.

On the point that Beth Watts has raised and on one of the issues that is important to note, we have already heard that nine local authorities—or at least seven—are likely to be in breach of the unsuitable accommodation order. What accommodation is there for the individuals whom we are talking about? I know from a visit that I undertook last Friday in my region that there are more than 50 people in Edinburgh with alcoholic brain damage who are currently on waiting lists to get into supported living. That accommodation does not necessarily seem to be in existence currently.

On the support that people need, wraparound care is expensive, and the workforce is not necessarily there. I turn to Maggie Brünjes now. What should the committee suggest to the Government needs to be put in place for that group? My experience is that people often end up pinging around services, sadly. What, in your expert opinion, could be a solution for that cohort of clients?

On that note, we have lost you, Maggie.

I have a question about temporary accommodation and I will ask for your input on trends in relation to the individuals that we are talking about. Findings from the “Hard Edges Scotland” research by Heriot-Watt University show the complex needs of those individuals and that they often fall through the gaps of services.

From my five years as an MSP trying to help such people, I know that they are often ex-military, people with learning disability issues or people with drug and alcohol problems. Do you have any evidence that you could provide the committee with about individuals who seem to be constantly in temporary council accommodation? Should we consider different models, such as a supported living model when individuals cannot hold down a tenancy?

Having referenced the “Hard Edges Scotland” research, I will bring in Dr Watts first.

I accept the minister’s point, but it is important that Parliament and the committee, especially, scrutinise the costs of establishing the operation. In fact, we were told on Monday that operating costs, including agency agreements with the DWP, are sitting at around 10 per cent of all current benefit expenditure that is being made in Scotland under the suite of benefits that the minister has outlined. I welcome the assurances that we have been given that that is a prediction and that that figure will come in line with the DWP figure, which currently stands at around 6.3 per cent of benefit expenditure. All of us in this chamber will want to make sure that every taxpayer pound is being put into payments for claimants, not administration costs.

The use of technology and new working can reduce those costs, and that is an important argument that we have not had about how we modernise our welfare system. As I have said, I am sure that every member wants to see the money that we are putting into welfare in Scotland through this Parliament or Westminster going to claimants.

An important part of today’s debate is about looking to the future and the proposed reform of the ways in which people will be able to access social security benefits under the new system and new models that are being outlined. The Scottish Government has already signalled that it intends to replace their personal independence payment with ADP. At the moment, however, the new criteria and assessment protocols in accessing the benefit are not clear.

In its useful briefing, SAMH states that approximately 39 per cent of people who are in receipt of PIP in Scotland have a mental health problem. We all know that that group of clients faced some of the greatest challenges during the pandemic, and SAMH research has found that such applicants often find that accessing processes and frequent reassessments cause additional stress. I know that all members of the committee want to know what the reforms will actually look like and what processes will be put in place for those individuals to have awards made. Organisations such as SAMH and the MS Society Scotland are looking for those details ahead of any potential reforms, and it is important that Parliament also has the opportunity to properly scrutinise them.

I apologise, Presiding Officer—I have just pressed the button.

I welcome today’s debate on accessing Scottish social security benefits and the on-going discussions across Parliament about the priorities around the reforms that are needed. I was pleased to visit Social Security Scotland this Monday alongside fellow members of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee. I thank those who work in the organisation for that helpful visit, which Pam Duncan-Glancy has already mentioned, and for the work that they have undertaken to date to help establish the organisation.

As the cabinet secretary has said, it is clear that, despite the pandemic, Social Security Scotland and the Department for Work and Pensions are working in close partnership to build the systems in Scotland that can help to develop a new institutional knowledge as well as deliver the successful benefits system that Scotland requires. I thank the organisations that have provided useful briefings ahead of the debate.

The Scotland Act 2016 introduced sweeping devolution of welfare powers. Scottish ministers now have full control over 11 benefits that were previously administered by the UK Government. The Scottish Government is also now able to top up UK-wide reserved benefits as well as create its own suite of new benefits.

Building a sustainable and responsive social security and benefits system is in all our interests. We, in the Conservative Party, want to make sure that the system that the next Scottish Government will inherit is fit for purpose and will deliver for the people of Scotland.

It is extremely important that Parliament scrutinises the costs of setting up Social Security Scotland. It is estimated that the costs now stand at approximately £651 million. Four years ago, the SNP said that it would cost approximately £307 million to create the new agency under the devolved powers that were being delivered. Social Security Scotland is clearly costing more than that, and Parliament has the important responsibility for scrutinising that.

I agree, but it is not clear how the changes will be put in place, what criteria will be used or who will undertake some of the assessments that might be needed.