Chamber and committees

I have sat through far too many debates and speeches from members on the Government benches in which it has been suggested that all aspects of welfare policy and its delivery are easy, that there are no difficult decisions to be made and that more money must be found. As my colleague Jeremy Balfour and other members have already said, who can forget the promises that were made to the people of Scotland back in 2016?

We were led to believe that, if only those powers were in the hands of SNP ministers, all would be well. As is so often the case from this nationalist Government, the reality does not even come close to matching the rhetoric, and today’s tone, whether from the minister or from SNP back benchers, shows exactly what the problem is. Rather than admit that they have failed, they tell us that everything is still all right, that there is no problem and that people should just be patient.

I am not going to take an intervention: as the minister’s own back benchers have shown, four minutes is very tight.

The Government is not delivering a radical departure from the culture and practices of the DWP, a point well made by Pam Duncan-Glancy, whom I might otherwise disagree with. There is a mismatch between rhetoric and reality. At best, we have seen more of the same, under a different logo; at worst, we have seen completely avoidable delays. Real people are being let down by a Government that is more interested in grabbing the headlines with flagship policies than delivering in a real and meaningful way.

Today’s debate is an example of that. A Government minister or a Government that is serious about having a grown-up debate would have sought to work across Parliament to give a reasonable amount of time for the programme business case to be tested and scrutinised. Today comes from the same, SNP knows best until it doesn’t, approach that I have already touched on. The Government does not want to be questioned and it believes in its own hype. If the shoe was on the other foot and the same practices came from the UK Government, I can guarantee that SNP members would not be so accepting, nor would they believe the excuses, especially those about data.

There are many areas of concern. Perhaps the minister can, in his closing speech, start by explaining to me and my constituents where the SNP will find the £760 million needed by 2026 to fund its welfare policies. Audit Scotland is right to sound alarm bells and many of my constituents will see that as the inevitable consequence of the SNP’s failure to be honest with people about the cost of its welfare policies or about who will end up funding them. We all want to see support for those who need it most, but we cannot pretend that funds are unlimited.

It would also be good to hear the minister’s thoughts about the rising running costs of Social Security Scotland. Where will that end? Does he really believe that the organisation is providing value for money?

People across Scotland deserve a Government that makes good on its promises. They expect a Government that is, at the very least, willing to hold its hands up and admit that things have not gone as well as it hoped. They want a Government that not only believes in dignity and fairness and speaks up for those ideals in this chamber but lives up to them in practice.

At present, we cannot say with any confidence that that is what we have. Instead, we have a Scottish Government that brushes off concerns and makes excuses. After years of hiding behind the DWP, the Government itself has been found wanting. It has massively underdelivered, while at the same time, it has overspent.

In relation to the second instrument, on short-term lets, I want to put it on record that, although I will support it and I recognise that the six-month extension will make a big difference to a number of individuals, it will not solve all the problems. The need for the instrument could have been avoided if concerns that were raised by the Short Term Accommodation Association and other industry stakeholders had been taken into account when the licensing scheme was first proposed. I therefore think that the delays and challenges that we are now seeing were entirely predictable, and that the Scottish Government needs to refocus its efforts on rebuilding relationships with stakeholders.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app does not seem to have registered my vote. I would have voted no.

Thank you. That will be appreciated.

The other thing I want to ask about is the appeals process. You said before that there have been 277 applications and that 255 offers have been accepted. The information that has been provided by the Scottish Parliament information centre suggests that 15 people had requested an appeal. Are those appeals included in the 22 who have not made a decision about whether to accept their offer?

Obviously, in the process of verifying and looking again at the information that is there—

But things can be pieced together differently.

Again, that is helpful information. We are dealing with quite a small number—12—and the feedback I have had from one individual is that they feel that, somehow, if a person goes through the review process they could be given more help to gather more information. Some of the people who have received an increased payment offer have spent more time looking at their application, and doing that has brought new information to light. I know that the system is under pressure, which is why I ask.

I recognise up front your personal commitment to getting the scheme through in the previous session of the Parliament, and I know that there was some time pressure with regard to ensuring that that work did not go to waste. However, on some of the issues around the delays and the challenges of processing the applications, I feel that it is right to press you on the modelling and how we modelled that.

Today, you have mentioned three factors involved in the delays, and I think that there is a fourth factor, for which, as a Parliament, we are collectively responsible, which is expectation management. Survivors thought, with regard to these applications and the principles that we set out, that things might move a bit quicker than they have. We must always be cautious about that, but, with regard to the modelling, where did the idea that people would take longer to put in their applications come from? We have looked at comparator schemes elsewhere as part of drawing up the legislation, so how did we get that modelling wrong?

It is about 8 per cent of people.