The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Social Security (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2—that is, Scottish Parliament bill 35A—the marshalled list and the groupings of amendments.
The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for about five minutes for the first division of stage 3. The period of voting for the first division will be 45 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak buttons, or enter RTS in the chat, as soon as possible after the group has been called. Members should now refer to the marshalled list of amendments.
Section 1—Childhood assistance
Group 1 is on childhood assistance. Amendment 2, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendment 4.
At stage 2, we introduced an amendment to enable late applications for a number of benefits that are delivered under the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018. Amendment 4 will bring best start grants into line with that stage 2 amendment. We did not originally intend to introduce the same changes to the early years assistance powers, as we intend to repeal them and deliver best start grants under the new childhood assistance powers in due course. However, following further consideration, we have decided that what I have set out is the best approach to ensure that there is an option to include provision on late applications for best start grants before we repeal the early years provisions. That will ensure consistency with the approach that is taken for other devolved benefits and will ensure flexibility over when we can allow late applications for best start grants.
Amendment 2 makes a small consequential change to one of the headings for the childhood assistance provisions so that it reflects the amendments that were made to eligibility criteria at stage 2.
I ask members to support the amendments to ensure a consistent approach to late applications and to ensure that the title of chapter 1 of the new schedule on childhood assistance accurately reflects its scope.
I move amendment 2.
As these are my first remarks during today’s proceedings, I put on record my thanks to everyone who has been involved in helping to get the bill to this stage.
I simply note that Scottish Labour will support the amendments in the group on childhood assistance. We welcome the technical fixes to the bill and, in particular, amendment 4, which will ensure the fair treatment of late applications.
I call the cabinet secretary to wind up.
I have nothing to add.
Amendment 2 agreed to.
After section 2
Group 2 is on winter heating assistance. Amendment 3, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, is grouped with amendments 21 and 22.
I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests, which shows that I am in receipt of higher-rate personal independence payments.
I think that it was Harold Macmillan who said, “Events, dear boy, events.” Amendment 3 has been overtaken by events. A similar amendment was debated at stage 2 and was voted down on the basis of the convener’s casting vote.
Amendment 3 recognises the financial situation that the Scottish Government is in but, at the same time, recognises that the most vulnerable people in our society need extra help. This is perhaps not for today, but the Parliament needs to truly debate the issue of targeted benefits versus universal benefits. With the financial situation as it is, whoever is in Government over the next number of years will have limited resources. Surely the point of benefits is to target them at the most vulnerable in our society. We already do that by awarding a similar type of payment to children who are under 16 and are on higher rates.
This benefit would have given those who are on the higher rate of pension age disability allowance or attendance allowance that extra payment to meet their fuel payments in recognition of the fact that most of them stay at home all the time and thus have extra heating costs. However, as I said at the start, I recognise that things have moved on, so I will not move the amendment in my name today.
I move to amendments 21 and 22 in the name of Paul O’Kane, which clearly prompted the statement by the cabinet secretary last Thursday, in which she went some way towards rectifying the situation that the UK Government has left us all in. However, her suggested way forward, which would come into force in November next year, would not give the same help to every pensioner; some are given a lesser amount of money. That is a concern. Certainly, my colleagues and I have received a number of emails—as I am sure have members across the whole chamber—to the effect that, without that extra payment, whatever is discussed and decided today, there will be people this winter who will be cold in their homes and need that help. I am disappointed that the UK Labour Government took that away. We should not be debating that this afternoon. However, we are where we are.
I look forward to hearing what Paul O’Kane, who lodged the amendments, has to say. I would also be interested to hear from the cabinet secretary what would happen if we were to introduce the regulations that she suggested last Thursday and they came into law, and then Westminster, at any point, reinstated the benefit that was already there? Would we then be paying two lots of benefits to pensioners? How would they fit together? More to the point, how would they be administered?
I look forward to hearing the contributions from others but, at this moment, we are minded to support amendments 21 and 22.
I move amendment 3.
I call Paul O’Kane to speak to amendment 21 and other amendments in the group.
We are now at stage 3 of the bill, having had a debate at stage 2 about the nature of pension age winter heating payment. Those who followed the stage 2 process, when Mr Balfour lodged amendments on the topic, will know that I was very clear in my remarks that it was important that Parliament had the chance to debate the nature of the fully devolved version of pension age winter heating assistance. That is what we are trying to do today, in setting out an opportunity to talk about how that benefit should look going forward.
My amendment 21 simply seeks to put the universal nature of pension age winter heating payment on a legislative footing. Again, I refer to my comments at stage 2, when I said that it was worthy of a debate and a discussion across the whole Parliament. Amendment 21 requires Scottish ministers to bring in new regulations by the end of next November to ensure that all pensioners are entitled to some form of assistance from winter 2025-26. I have consistently said throughout the process that we have to look at pension age winter heating assistance in Scotland in the context that we are in.
I recognise that I have asked the cabinet secretary a number of times what her plans are for this winter. It is clear that a last-minute decision was made and announced last Thursday about what will happen this winter, including in relation to the £41 million—which I have referenced throughout the process—from the household support fund, which will rise to £82 million next year. I recognise the Government’s decision to spend that money more broadly.
We offered a package of measures that could have been put in place this year, but those have not been undertaken. The Northern Ireland Executive, for example, has been working on how to use that money this year to support winter heating assistance and move to a £100 payment from the household support fund, but that has not happened here in Scotland.
14:45The Scottish Government has repeatedly said that it supports universal payments but, as I have been told by the cabinet secretary and by others in the chamber, talk is cheap, and it will stay cheap unless the payment that we are discussing is put on to a legislative footing.
As we have now learned from various sources, the commitment that was made on Thursday was rushed and thrown together. There is real concern that, although an announcement was made here, there is no legislative foundation for it. The devolution of pension age winter heating payment surely gives us an opportunity to set out in statute how that payment will continue. It is only fair that we have this debate here today and take the opportunity to vote on that new devolved benefit and put it on a legislative footing.
Let us be honest: the commitment that came from the Government, late in the day, was possible only because of the record block grant that has been provided following the UK budget. [Interruption.]
Let us hear Mr O’Kane.
They do not want to hear this.
Despite our discussion of and debate about the issue over many months, it has taken the cabinet secretary until now to confirm what she will do with a new devolved payment in future and also what she will do now that she knows that the Barnett consequentials are there.
The cabinet secretary has been telling me for months that she cannot do anything because she does not know what the budget will be, that she cannot base the budget on
“a wing, a prayer and a promise”,—[Official Report, 3 October 2024; c 44.]
that she did not know that there would be £41 million this year and £82 million next year or what she would do in future. The UK budget has made things clearer, and that is why I have lodged amendment 21.
I appreciate that the Scottish National Party does not want to take the opportunity to bring Parliament together to look at the future of this devolved benefit and to put it on a legislative footing. As I said at stage 2, there is an opportunity to ensure that we have a discussion about what pension age winter heating assistance should look like.
My amendment 22 shows that there is an opportunity look at how we do that in future. We know that receipt of pension credit is the criterion for the delivery of winter heating assistance. In her announcement last week, the cabinet secretary said that anyone whose income takes them above pension credit level will receive £100. There is an opportunity to look at how we might do things differently in Scotland, where we have a devolved payment. At stage 2, I raised comments that we had from the Poverty and Inequality Commission and others, who have pointed to the need to make a fairer system so that those who have a higher income or pension do not receive money that they are not entitled to.
It sounds as if Paul O’Kane is coming to the end of his remarks, so I ask him to be clear about amendment 22, which claws back money. Does that mean that winter heating assistance would not be a universal payment?
I am about to talk about amendment 22, which provides a power for Parliament to consider, by using secondary legislation, whether it wants to create a mechanism by which it could claw payments back from those who have higher incomes.
One reason why I lodged amendment 22 comes from the evidence that was given by the Poverty and Inequality Commission regarding the original consideration of pension age winter heating assistance. That evidence set out how the system could be fairer if a universal benefit was paid but there were options, for example through the tax system or by other methods, to take money back if required. We know that many people choose not to use their winter heating allowance or choose to give it back. The Government’s own Poverty and Inequality Commission, among others, laid out those options.
Amendments 21 and 22 simply seek put that matter into the bill, so that we have legislation for what the Government has said that it wants to do and so that we have the option to create a claw-back mechanism by using secondary legislation, if that is what we wish to do.
Will the member accept an intervention?
I am concluding and do not intend to take the intervention because there will be opportunities for further contributions.
As I said, there is an opportunity for Parliament to come together on this issue and to put into statute something that I think that we all support.
Amendment 3, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, is focused on expanding eligibility for winter heating assistance via the winter heating payment to people on the higher rates of pension age disability payment and attendance allowance. Conversely, amendments 21 and 22, in the name of Paul O’Kane, suggest removing altogether our ability to target payments at people who are in receipt of relevant benefits and would allow for all or part of the payment to be recovered when the income of the individual in receipt of the payment, or the income of anyone living with them, exceeded a certain amount.
On 28 November, I announced that the Government would deliver a £41 million package of support for our pensioners this winter and that we would deliver universal support to pensioners through our new pension age winter heating payment from next winter, which includes a new £100 payment that is not available elsewhere in the UK. That will provide guaranteed support to around 900,000 people who will miss out this winter due to the UK Labour Government’s decision to restrict winter fuel payment eligibility. It means, for example, that people on disability benefits who are above the income threshold for pension credits will now receive support.
Our policy includes being able to focus on people who are in receipt of low-income benefits to ensure that those who are least able to afford increasing energy bills over the winter months—and they are increasing—can be identified and will receive a higher level of support.
It is surprising, if I can put it like that, to see Mr O’Kane present a proposal that could prevent a higher level of support from being paid to those who, through receipt of a low-income benefit, are identified as having a higher level of need. Many of his remarks were based on the requirement for a legislative footing; I therefore point him to section 30 of the 2018 act, which provides a legislative footing for winter heating payments. It is unclear from the drafting of amendment 21 whether the ability to target assistance in that way would be removed, and removing our capacity to easily focus support on those who are most in need is concerning.
As soon as the UK Government made its announcement to cut winter fuel payments from many pensioners, I committed to continuing to review eligibility for pension age winter heating payment, and we have delivered on that commitment.
I thank Mr Balfour for his on-going interest in the topic, which he has raised with me in the many discussions that we have had. Although we did not necessarily agree on the solutions, I thank him for his time.
With reference to what would happen if the UK Government was to change its mind—there is still the opportunity for it to do so—that would change the block grant adjustments that the Scottish Government would receive, which would, in part, assist the Scottish Government in mitigating any UK Government cuts in that area.
I reached out to Mr O’Kane last week to explain the difficulties with the proposals that he has lodged in terms of operational complexity and flaws in drafting. Unfortunately, I did not receive a reply, so let us go through some of that now.
The cabinet secretary will recall that I raised these issues at stage 2 and suggested that there would be an opportunity for a debate and further discussion in the chamber at stage 3. I do not think that it is fair to characterise me as not wishing to engage.
I note that the cabinet secretary brought her statement on energy costs to the chamber on Thursday with less than 10 minutes’ notice to members. She never mentioned this to me previously, so I do not think that what she has said is in the spirit of trying to find consensus.
It is disappointing that Mr O’Kane did not take up that invitation, because I would have gone through the flaws in the system. However, I am more than happy to do so in this public setting today.
Mr O’Kane’s amendment 21 would require expensive and time-consuming technical development to implement, with development costs alone potentially running into tens of millions of pounds. I am sure that we can all think of better ways to spend that money. Some of what would be required to implement the amendment—particularly the links with the Department for Work and Pensions and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs—would be so complicated that it might in fact not be possible. It certainly would not be possible before November 2025. For example, it is not clear from the amendment how Social Security Scotland could assess household income, because the sort of data feeds that we would require simply do not exist.
Therefore, let us be clear that what Mr O’Kane is proposing today is a delay to supporting pensioners. Even if the technical hurdles could be overcome with HMRC, it is forecasted that hundreds of additional seasonal staff would be required in Social Security Scotland to deliver a one-off payment, which we do not consider an efficient use of the agency’s resources. We must remember that those additional staff would have to be recruited and trained every year at continued expense.
In addition, it is not clear how Mr O’Kane’s amendments—particularly amendment 22—would work alongside the existing framework of the 2018 act. For example, under the act, Scottish ministers can recover payments only if the individual is not entitled to the assistance that they have been given or is entitled to less, and the individual is liable to repay the overpayment. It is not clear how, under the act, someone could be entitled, but later be subject to a decision that they are not entitled to the same payment. Let us be clear that amendment 22 talks about giving money to eligible pensioners and then taking it away from them.
When we compare the systems in the Scottish Government and Labour proposals, we have a Scottish Government proposal that is universal and a Labour proposal that would apply to the majority of pensioners. We have a Scottish Government proposal that is simple for pensioners to understand, with £300, £200 or £100 for pensioner households. We still do not know and have no idea how much the Labour proposal would be or who it would be for. We have a simple-to-administer proposal from the Scottish Government as opposed to the genuinely unworkable proposal from Scottish Labour. The Scottish Government’s proposal will be available from next year. Labour’s would be available at some point in the future if we could get past the technical deficiencies.
This Government will continue to call on the Labour Government to reverse its decision to means test winter fuel payments. Despite Mr O’Kane’s wish to push his expensive and highly unworkable amendment to a vote, the real challenge is for the Labour Party to figure out what it actually stands for. Scottish Labour has had two chances to get this right—a vote in Holyrood and a vote in Westminster to scrap the cut. On both counts, Scottish Labour backed Starmer and not Scotland. [Interruption.]
Members, thank you.
For all those reasons, the Government does not support amendments 3, 21 or 22. I invite Mr Balfour not to press amendment 3 and Mr O’Kane to not move amendments 21 and 22.
I invite Jeremy Balfour to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 3.
The Scottish Government and Scottish Labour could perhaps have approached the three amendments in the group with a wee bit more humility on both sides. We are where we are because of what happened at Westminster, and it is slightly unfortunate that Mr O’Kane, in his remarks, did not at least acknowledge that and apologise to Scottish pensioners. With regard to the Scottish Government, we have to recognise that the majority of pensioners will receive no extra benefit this winter.
Concern has been expressed at stages 2 and 3 about the way that Social Security Scotland works and the system that it has in place. In a letter that we received from the cabinet secretary, she seemed to indicate that, even if Parliament wanted to make the proposed changes, Social Security Scotland could not have delivered them this year. That means that we have a system that is not flexible and will not allow us to adapt. We need to come back to that, either in the chamber or at committee, and examine what can be done about it.
We are where we are, and for that reason we will support Labour’s amendments in the group. I seek to withdraw my amendment 3.
Amendment 3, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendment 21 moved—[Paul O’Kane].
The question is, that amendment 21 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division. As this is the first division at stage 3, I will suspend the meeting for around five minutes to allow members to access the digital voting system.
14:58 Meeting suspended.
We will now proceed with the division on amendment 21. Members should cast their votes now.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) [Proxy vote cast by Richard Leonard]
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Rona Mackay]
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Jamie Hepburn]
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Jamie Hepburn]
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Alba)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Abstentions
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
The result of the division is: For 51, Against 60, Abstentions 7.
Amendment 21 disagreed to.
Amendment 22 moved—[Paul O’Kane].
The question is, that amendment 22 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) [Proxy vote cast by Richard Leonard]
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Rona Mackay]
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Jamie Hepburn]
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Jamie Hepburn]
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Alba)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 50, Against 67, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 22 disagreed to.
Section 3A—Power to make provision about late applications for assistance
Amendment 4 moved—[Shirley-Anne Somerville]—and agreed to.
Section 7—New determination of entitlement after error
Group 3 is on new determination during appeal. Amendment 5, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, is grouped with amendments 6 to 15.
I am grateful to the Child Poverty Action Group, Citizens Advice Scotland and other organisations that have helped with the drafting of my amendments.
I am sure that the cabinet secretary and members will be pleased to know that we are now debating policy instead of money. This is an important policy debate to have.
My amendments in the group aim to remove the unnecessary step of having a formal redetermination before an appeal. An appeal could be scheduled more promptly, if that was required, but the redetermination could take place behind the scenes and the award could be changed, if that was needed. The redetermination could also mean that, if the award was made, the appeal could lapse, which would mean that a further intervening period would not be required.
On social security, we have tried, as a Parliament, to put the claimant—the disabled person—at the heart of the process. We have said that we want to treat them with dignity and respect, and I believe that amendment 5 goes a wee bit further in providing that dignity and respect, because it would help the individual to get an award if the process could happen more quickly than is the case at the moment.
I do not want to pre-empt the cabinet secretary’s comments, but I suspect that she will say that people do not like going to tribunals. That will be true for some people, but perhaps this is a chance for us, collectively here in Scotland, to reset the image of tribunals. As a former member of a tribunal that heard such cases, I believe that most, if not all, tribunal members seek to do their best. I appreciate that the process can be stressful and awkward for some, but that does not mean that we should not allow a redetermination to happen in the background, which might allow a decision to be made more quickly.
I hope that members will look at these amendments favourably. They put the claimant where we want them to be, which is at the heart of the system. They would speed up the whole process of the system, and it is to be hoped that we will not end up with many more tribunals.
I move amendment 5.
I call the cabinet secretary to speak to amendment 9 and other amendments in the group.
I have lodged five amendments that relate to provisions that allow Social Security Scotland to make a new, more advantageous determination that has the effect of stopping an appeal. Amendment 11 makes minor drafting changes to section 49A of the bill as amended at stage 2. It replaces the reference to assistance that an individual was “given” with reference to assistance that an individual was “entitled to”. That small change of wording is simply to ensure consistency and to align with other references in the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 to when an individual is “entitled to assistance”.
Amendment 12 removes the provisions that define “error”, as those provisions are now unnecessary. That is because the bill was amended at stage 2 to remove the need for error in order to allow Social Security Scotland to make a new determination after an appeal is lodged and for the appeal to stop as a result. Instead, the bill now provides that the Scottish ministers can make a new determination, provided that they are of the opinion that the person is entitled to a more advantageous award. That addresses concerns that were raised at stage 2 that including a requirement for error was too restrictive. Since there is no longer a requirement for error to have occurred, there is no need to define “error”.
Amendments 9, 10 and 15 are minor technical amendments that remove references to “error” from the headings of the bill, in line with the changes that were made at stage 2 to remove the need for an error to have occurred.
I urge members to support all five of the amendments in my name in this group.
I turn to Mr Balfour’s amendments, which we have had many discussions about over the past few months. I am afraid that Mr Balfour has still not convinced me to support amendments 5, 6, 7 and 8 or amendments 13 and 14. Those amendments seek to remove the requirement for a client to request a redetermination of the determination that stopped the appeal.
Those amendments would deprive people of the right to request a redetermination in that scenario. Giving people redetermination and appeal rights gives them the same range of challenge rights that are given to people who are challenging all other determinations. If a client disagrees with the determination that stopped the appeal, a right of redetermination provides the opportunity to correct any mistakes at an early stage for an independent rerun. Social Security Scotland has statutory timescales to make a redetermination to ensure that a client is not left in limbo and that they can expect a redetermination within the timeframe that is associated with that particular benefit. In addition, clients already have a right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland if Social Security Scotland does not complete a redetermination within the statutory timeframes.
If we removed the person’s right to request a redetermination, they would instead need to lodge a fresh appeal, which may impact on the capacity of the First-tier Tribunal. Moving disputes from Social Security Scotland into the tribunal might have the effect of delaying the resolution. There can be no guarantees that a tribunal could dispose of the hearings more quickly than through a redetermination, which we consider could negatively impact on people’s experience of using the system.
15:15Some clients find a tribunal process daunting and stressful. While I agree with Mr Balfour that we should work to prevent and alleviate those perceptions of the process being daunting, it is important that we continue to ensure that people have the same rights across the redeterminations and appeals process.
For those reasons, I urge members not to support Mr Balfour’s amendments in this group.
We welcome the cabinet secretary’s tidying-up amendments in this group. The changes made at stage 2 to remove the need for an error to be identified were a positive change to the bill and were welcomed by stakeholders. We recognise the need to make some tweaks pursuant to the previous amendments, and we will therefore support the Government’s amendments in this group.
I have heard what Mr Balfour has said about his amendments, both at stage 3 and at stage 2. Unfortunately, despite the good intent behind them, we will not support them today. We believe that, if a new determination is made due to a change in circumstances, it is important that clients retain the right to request a redetermination of the new decision before proceeding to an appeal, which, as we have heard, can often be intimidating and is perhaps a less preferable option.
In concert with what we have heard, I would say that we hope, as a result of on-going work and other provisions in the bill, that there will be fewer mistakes and quicker decisions in the first place, which should drive down the need for redetermination and/or appeal. We will continue to work with the Government and will hold it to account on that point.
I invite Jeremy Balfour to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 5.
Just to provide clarification, I can say that we will be supporting the Government amendments in this group, and we welcome the tidying up that they involve.
I have probably had enough goes at the two members concerned at stages 2 and 3, so I will not labour the point, but I again point out that a redetermination can still take place. Once a decision is made by Social Security Scotland that the claimant does not like, they lodge their appeal, which normally takes four to six weeks. During that time, the redetermination takes place within Social Security Scotland. If, at that point, Social Security Scotland wants to make a decision that is different from the original decision, that can be intimated to the claimant. If the claimant accepts that, they do not have to go forward to the appeal. The redetermination—
Mr Balfour, I ask you to resume your seat for a second. It is coming up on my screen that Stuart McMillan is seeking to make a point of order. Is that the case, Mr McMillan?
No.
It is not the case. Please continue, Mr Balfour.
For a moment, I thought I had persuaded somebody. [Laughter.]
I make that clarification: redetermination does not go away; it is simply done behind the scenes.
I press amendment 5.
The question is, that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
The vote is closed.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted no.
Thank you, Mr Bibby. Your vote has been recorded.
For
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Rona Mackay]
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Jamie Hepburn]
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Jamie Hepburn]
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Alba)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) [Proxy vote cast by Richard Leonard]
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 27, Against 88, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 5 disagreed to.
Amendments 6 to 8 not moved.
Amendments 9 to 12 moved—[Shirley-Anne Somerville]—and agreed to.
Amendments 13 and 14 not moved.
Amendment 15 moved—[Shirley-Anne Somerville]—and agreed to.
After section 7
We turn to group 4, which is on determinations as part of appeal. Amendment 16, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is the only amendment in the group.
I lodged an amendment in order to clarify the scope of a determination that is made by the First-tier Tribunal in an appeal. Amendment 16 is intended to clarify the law and ensure that it works in line with the original policy intention for the Scottish social security system. I note that CPAG has urged members to support amendment 16, as it provides clarity for people about what can be considered during an appeal.
Amendment 16 makes it clear that the tribunal
“must not take into account any circumstances which did not exist at the relevant time”.
The “relevant time” is the time or event that the Scottish ministers had to consider when determining the person’s entitlement—for example, the date of application. That puts beyond doubt that later changes in a person’s circumstances are to be considered separately. If an appeal were to consider a later change in a person’s circumstances, that would mean that the person would not have had access to the full range of challenge rights on the tribunal’s determination in relation to those new circumstances.
For example, if the tribunal were to consider a change of circumstances for a later period when making a determination at appeal, the client would only have a right to ask the First-tier Tribunal to review its decision or to ask for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal on a point of law against that decision. That means that some people might be denied their redetermination and appeal rights. If the person’s later circumstances are considered under a separate determination, the person would then have full redetermination and appeal rights against that, if they do not agree with the determination.
I want to be clear that amendment 16 does not prevent the tribunal from considering relevant information that was unknown, was not available or was not provided at the time when the original decision maker was determining the person’s entitlement. Amendment 16 expressly states that the tribunal
“may take into account circumstances which existed but were not known”.
For example, if a letter from a medical professional is written at a later date and demonstrates that someone had a particular condition at an earlier date that would impact their entitlement, that information could be considered.
Another example is when a person was not in receipt of a qualifying benefit when they applied to Social Security Scotland but subsequently received a backdated award of a qualifying benefit that confers eligibility. In that scenario, the tribunal could consider that information.
Amendment 16 is about protecting people’s rights to access justice, and I urge members to support it.
I move amendment 16.
Amendment 16 agreed to.
Section 8—Appeal to First-tier Tribunal against process decisions
Group 5 is on appeal to First-tier Tribunal against process decisions. Amendment 17, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, is grouped with amendment 18.
These amendments would ensure that process decisions are able to be appealed past the First-tier Tribunal and be heard at the Upper Tribunal for Scotland, in contrast to section 61 of the 2018 act, which states that backdated claims are process decisions. My amendments would allow such claims to be escalated if required.
I am grateful, again, to CPAG and Citizens Advice Scotland, which ask us to support these amendments. I will, if I can, steal the example from the briefing that CPAG has sent to all members, because it explains the situation better than I can. It states:
“Astrid’s Scottish child payment stopped in error when she moved from tax credits to universal credit. Astrid didn’t see the letter notifying her that the Scottish child payment stopped because she was looking after her terminally ill mum. She submits a late redetermination request and receives a process decision refusing her request because it was more than a year since the determination is made.”
If these amendments are not agreed to, that would be the end of the situation for Astrid, the claimant. I am seeking to introduce the right to appeal to the Upper Tribunal in process appeals, which would allow case law to develop around that type of situation and in other areas.
Case law is important. Over the past 20 or 30 years, we have seen, first with the DWP and now in Scotland, how case law has been interpreted and has given claimants greater rights. Case law develops precedents about how legislation should be interpreted and applied.
I believe that it is important that we allow the judiciary a role in developing the process of appeals, and that it can look to continuously improve the social security system. One of the principles that is set out in the 2018 act is about continuous improvement and getting it right for every person. That is not currently the situation. Amendments 17 and 18 would rectify that, and give claimants better rights of appeal. For that reason, I ask members to consider supporting the amendments in my name.
I move amendment 17.
Scottish Labour supports the amendments in group 5. We recognise that it is important that people have a final right of appeal to the Upper Tribunal. We note that organisations such as CPAG have pointed out—as we have heard—that that could help the development of precedent around process decisions, which may, over time, build up a better understanding of how the social security system is working and mean that more effective decisions are made earlier in the appeals process. As a result, we will support these amendments.
The Scottish Government does not support amendments 17 and 18, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, which would allow people to appeal a process decision of the First-tier Tribunal in the Upper Tribunal. We do not consider that these amendments are required, and an amendment proposing the same thing was not agreed to at stage 2.
Most process appeals are based on the facts of the appeal—for example, whether a client has completed a benefits application correctly—while Upper Tribunal appeals can be brought only on a point of law. The volume of process appeals received to date is very low, and my understanding is that, if required and where appropriate, the First-tier Tribunal could seek guidance from the Upper Tribunal—for example, where the First-tier Tribunal was considering whether an appellant had a good reason for requesting a redetermination late.
The Government therefore does not support amendments 17 and 18.
I ask Jeremy Balfour to wind up and say whether he wishes to press or withdraw amendment 17.
I have nothing to add, but I will press amendment 17.
The question is, that amendment 17 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
15:30
The vote is now closed.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My system crashed. I would have voted yes.
Thank you. Your vote will be recorded.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. There seems to have been a problem here, but I would have voted no.
I assure Mr Kidd that his vote has been recorded. Thank you.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) [Proxy vote cast by Richard Leonard]
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Rona Mackay]
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Jamie Hepburn]
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Jamie Hepburn]
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Alba)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 46, Against 70, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 17 disagreed to.
Amendment 18 not moved.
After section 15
Group 6 is on uprating assistance for inflation. Amendment 1, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is the only amendment in the group.
As many members in the chamber will be aware, the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 requires that benefits for disability, carers, employment injuries and funeral expenses, as well as the Scottish child payment, are uprated annually in line with inflation. At present, that duty does not extend to the best start grants, best start foods and winter heating benefits. Similarly, the UK Government is not legally required to uprate all benefits annually and, as such, funding for uprating in Scotland through block grant adjustments fully covers only those payments that have a UK equivalent that is also required to be uprated by statute.
Since the first Scottish uprating exercise in 2019, the Scottish Government has frequently chosen to uprate all payments, including those that are increased at ministers’ discretion. Twice, we have also responded quickly to changing conditions to increase benefits beyond inflation, as measured by the September consumer prices index. With amendment 1, we aim to go further than the UK Government in supporting the people of Scotland. We will do that by legally committing to annually increase every benefit that is delivered under the 2018 act in line with inflation.
This new legal obligation will apply automatically to our winter heating payments and best start grants. Best start foods will be brought under the 2018 act in the future but, until then, we have made a public commitment to also increase that payment each year in line with inflation. This action will help to protect the real-terms values of those payments as costs rise in the economy, delivering more money for families by way of best start grants and best start foods. Those payments, which are already more generous than their DWP equivalents, support those families who are most at risk of poverty. Along with the game-changing Scottish child payment, the payments contribute to the Government’s core mission of ending child poverty. Scottish Government policies are estimated to keep 100,000 children out of relative poverty in 2024-25.
These annual increases will also apply to our winter heating benefits, helping the most vulnerable in our society to stay warm each year, safe in the knowledge that, as costs rise, increases to the payments will also be guaranteed.
In an already challenging fiscal environment, it is no surprise that this decision comes with significant financial implications. However, the Scottish Government views that it is vital to invest in support of families and households in Scotland. To that end, I urge all members in the chamber to support amendment 1.
I move amendment 1.
Amendment 1 expands the scope of the current duty to uprate benefits in line with inflation. We do not necessarily disagree with that, but it should be done on a discretionary basis in any given budget or for any given benefit. Indeed, last year, the UK Conservative Government uprated benefits in line with inflation, even when it stood at a hefty 6.7 per cent.
I wonder whether this is perhaps why Jeremy Balfour is not speaking at this point. I recollect that, at stage 2, Mr Balfour lodged an amendment to uprate, so it is disappointing to see that the Conservatives’ position has changed.
That is, indeed, accurate. However, since then, we have looked in the round at the medium and long-term projections for the benefits bill. That is something that I will come to now and tomorrow. [Interruption.]
Members, could we just listen to the person who has the floor at the moment, who is Mr Hoy. Mr Hoy, please continue.
I missed the fact that Shona Robison wants to make an intervention.
Can the member reconcile what he has just said with voting for Paul O’Kane’s amendments, which are uncosted, unspecific and undeliverable? How does he reconcile those two events, which have happened in the past half hour?
The minister has been in politics long enough to know that politics is about prioritisation, and that is exactly what we are talking about here today. We are talking about making the benefit uplift mandatory for all devolved benefits now and into future years, thereby binding the hands of current and future ministers and members of the Scottish Parliament who might want to reserve the option to make selective increases based on priority and need.
When setting their budgets, Governments should, quite rightly, be given the opportunity—
Will the member take an intervention?
No. I have taken two interventions already. Governments should be given the opportunity to explore whether an automatic inflationary uplift is affordable in that year, given the wider pressures on devolved benefit spending in Scotland. We will return to that tomorrow in relation to the budget.
Inflation is now relatively low, although it has been subject to upward pressure since the additional borrowing in the Labour budget, and we could be in a period of very high inflation. The amendment could therefore present challenges, even though I accept that the estimate of the relevant benefits that are being considered today amounts to only £1.9 million in 2025-26. However, given that the other benefits are already automatically uprated, that could mean a significant amount of money in a higher-inflation environment.
We also have to think of this in the wider context, as we will do when the budget is presented tomorrow. If the amendment is agreed to, the total cost to the Scottish Government of uprating benefits will be £113 million in 2025-26 alone, and it could be much more in future years.
The Scottish Fiscal Commission has forecast that, in 2025-26, the Scottish Government will spend approximately £478 million more on specifically devolved social security benefits than it receives from the UK Government through block grant adjustments. That is a political choice of the Scottish Government, and it should be entitled to take either the blame or the credit for it, depending on your outlook.
If we add in new and other social security payments, the total social security spend above block grant adjustments received by the Scottish Government will be £1.2 billion in 2025-26, and that £1.2 billion will have to be drawn from elsewhere. Few observers and analysts believe that that position is sustainable in the medium and long term. I encourage the minister to listen to the evidence that was given by the Institute for Fiscal Studies this morning in the Parliament.
The amendment will therefore bake in inflationary increases that will undoubtedly restrict future Governments and Parliaments in setting their cross-portfolio spending plans and future budgets. In short, if we want to spend money on public services, cut taxes for hard-working Scots and support businesses to create economic growth, we cannot pass into law a policy of automatically funding increases in spending on an already substantial benefits budget in Scotland.
The Scottish Conservatives therefore do not believe that enshrining an uprate for any benefit by inflation in law is prudent or politically sensible, and that is why we will vote against amendment 1 today.
In winding up, I will agree with Craig Hoy on one point: yes, this is about our priorities. Our priorities are about protecting low-income families, protecting carers and protecting disabled people. It is unfortunate but perhaps not surprising that the Conservatives do not share those priorities. I will press the amendment.
The question is, that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
The vote is closed.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Apologies, but the app would not refresh. I would have voted yes.
Thank you, Ms Baillie. Your vote will be recorded.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Rona Mackay]
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Jamie Hepburn]
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Jamie Hepburn]
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Alba)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) [Proxy vote cast by Richard Leonard]
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Against
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 89, Against 26, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Section 17—Recovery of value of assistance from compensation payments
Group 7 is on compensation recovery: pension-age disability payment. Amendment 19, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is the only amendment in the group.
Amendment 19 is designed to include pension-age disability payment in the list of benefits in proposed schedule 12 to the 2018 act that are recoverable from awards of compensation as a result of accident, injury or disease.
PADP is designed to provide financial support to help to meet the additional costs of care relating to an individual’s disability or health condition. As such, equivalent amounts of the benefit received by an injured person as a result of an accident, injury or disease will be recovered entirely from compensation that is awarded for the costs of care required by the individual for the same incident.
Now that PADP is a live benefit that is being delivered by Social Security Scotland, it is appropriate to include that payment in the compensation recovery provisions. As further relevant recoverable benefits are introduced in future, such as Scottish adult disability living allowance and employment injury assistance, those will be added to the 2018 act by way of regulations.
The purpose of the compensation provisions is to help us to meet the Scottish social security principle of efficiency and delivering value for money. As such, I ask all members to support the amendment.
I move amendment 19.
Amendment 19 agreed to.
After section 21
Group 8 is on key performance indicators for Social Security Scotland. Amendment 23, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, is grouped with amendment 24.
I thank the cabinet secretary for arranging a meeting with Social Security Scotland, and I thank Social Security Scotland for that meeting, which I had with it last week to discuss some of the issues. The meeting was productive, and I certainly got a better understanding of where Social Security Scotland thinks that it is going over the next few years. However, there is still an issue in relation to how we judge and evaluate Social Security Scotland, particularly whether it is providing the best possible service for claimants and working efficiently.
15:45A number of years ago, Mr Doris and I had a wee trip down to Victoria Quay to see how Social Security Scotland was designing the new system. I confess that I came away from that trip feeling that the system was going to be all singing and all dancing and that it was going to be of great use. However, over the past few years, it has become clear that, for whatever reason—whether it is due to design faults or political decisions—the information that is used to make judgments is simply not being recorded, so it is very difficult to hold the Scottish Government and the agency accountable for what is going on.
I acknowledge that things have got better over the past few years, but there are still some fairly glaring issues and, if the agency was a private company or another part of the Government, there would be real questions. That is why I seek to introduce provisions to allow the Parliament and the Government to put in place key performance indicators over the next few years. The system would be flexible, because the indicators would be introduced through secondary legislation.
As I knew before my meeting with Social Security Scotland, it has lots of information, but it is difficult to judge whether that information is good or bad. For example, on an average day, the Dundee office is at 45 per cent occupancy. That is the figure that Social Security Scotland records. I must confess that that figure seems very low, given the amount of money that we are paying for the building, but, without some kind of benchmarking or KPI, it is very difficult to make such judgment calls.
We are told that people are waiting on the telephone for long periods. However, again, it is difficult to know whether the figures are acceptable or whether there needs to be improvement. My amendments will ensure that claimants get the best service. The same could be said for application and decision times. The figures are available, but the Parliament, collectively, has not made a decision on whether they are good or bad.
From my meeting with Social Security Scotland and other meetings, I know that it is open to having such a system. Ultimately, it is for the Parliament to set appropriate KPIs so that we can be assured that taxpayers’ money is being used appropriately and that claimants are getting the service that they deserve.
For that reason, I move amendment 23.
I thank Jeremy Balfour for lodging a revised version of the amendments that he lodged at stage 2. Scottish Labour supported his stage 2 amendments, because it is important that such a large and significant public body is open to the scrutiny and transparency that we all want. Although we recognise that Social Security Scotland publishes its annual accounts and gives evidence to the Parliament, parliamentarians have still struggled to get certain information, and there is no duty on Social Security Scotland to report on certain issues.
I welcome the fact that amendment 23 takes cognisance of the debate that we had at stage 2. It is more open and less prescriptive about what the indicators should include, and it would allow the Parliament to provide input on what the KPIs should look like in order to better hold the Government and the agency to account on behalf of all our constituents.
I hope that the Government and other parties recognise the desire for additional reporting and information and that the Government will either support the amendments or allow further discussion in that regard.
Mr Balfour’s amendments 23 and 24 would create a power to set out key performance indicators for Social Security Scotland in regulations, and would make those regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. The Scottish Government does not support those amendments. Fixing KPIs in legislation would have the effect of making them less responsive to emerging issues.
As an executive agency, Social Security Scotland already publishes an annual report and accounts in line with the Scottish public finance manual. It must comply with the Public Finance and Accountability (Scotland) Act 2000, and the Social Justice and Social Security Committee can, and frequently does, hear evidence from senior leadership at Social Security Scotland on matters of operational delivery.
Members will be aware that section 15 of the 2018 act requires a Scottish social security charter to be prepared, published and reviewed. The charter was co-designed with people with lived experience of social security and underpins everything that the agency does. Approved by Parliament in 2019, it sets out the service that people should expect from the agency. A revised charter, using a comprehensive co-design approach, was approved by Parliament in June. New commitments included providing clients with more information on what they can expect and increased accountability for delivering on charter commitments.
If more information about the performance of Social Security Scotland is required, Parliament already has the power to get it. Section 22 of the 2018 act requires the Scottish Commission on Social Security—SCOSS—to report on any matter relevant to social security if the Parliament resolves that it should. No resolution has been passed to date.
I am pleased that Mr Balfour has had the meeting with Social Security Scotland that he mentioned. Indeed, he and I have discussed the issue on a number of occasions. I think that he and I wish to get to the same end point of a highly effective, functioning agency. I believe that, in many ways, we have that. The client satisfaction rates are very high, although I am always conscious that we must continue to improve. The questions in the discussions that I have had with Mr Balfour on the issue have been about what data is missing, and what data is available but not necessarily obvious, such as the occupancy rate, which he discussed. I would say that I would not consider that one of the key performance indicators; I am perhaps more interested in the outcomes for clients, but there is a discussion to be had.
We have seen a marked improvement in relation to waiting times on phone lines, and they are published. I would caution against setting a limit on the time that people should spend on the phone to a client, because it is important that we do not get into unintended consequences, as we used to see in the DWP, where client advisers were encouraged to end calls to ensure that they were meeting KPIs.
Mr Balfour raises an important point about ensuring transparency and ensuring that there is a discussion about satisfaction with, and the performance of, the agency. I would share that view. I would welcome any time to discuss that before the committee, as would the agency.
Regardless of what happens with the amendments today, we are happy to continue the discussions with Mr Balfour about which data is not published that he feels needs to be published and, if it is published, how we perhaps need to make that more available and more obvious to the committee and those who use the service.
For those reasons, I am afraid that I cannot support amendments 23 and 24 in Mr Balfour’s name. However, I agree with his principle about evaluating the agency. As I said, regardless of what happens with the amendments today, I commit to working with him on that in the future.
I call Jeremy Balfour to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 23.
I welcome the cabinet secretary’s willingness to continue the conversation.
The reason for setting out the KPIs in regulations would be to give a bit more flexibility. We would not be pinning them down. As we all know, regulations are easier to change than primary legislation.
I will quickly respond to two points. As well as a responsibility to look after the claimant, we have a responsibility to look after taxpayers’ money. Although it is probably not in the top five issues, that is why we need to know the occupancy rate.
I come back to the point that until the Parliament knows what the acceptable figures are for decision times, telephone lines and all those things, it will be difficult to decide whether Social Security Scotland is doing what it does well.
That is why I press amendment 23.
The question is, that amendment 23 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) [Proxy vote cast by Richard Leonard]
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Rona Mackay]
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Jamie Hepburn]
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Jamie Hepburn]
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 55, Against 59, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 23 disagreed to.
Section 24—Regulation-making powers
Amendment 24 not moved.
That ends stage 3 consideration of amendments.
Members will be aware that, at this point in the proceedings, the Presiding Officer is required under standing orders to decide whether, in her view, any provision of a bill relates to a protected subject matter—that is, whether it modifies the electoral system and franchise for Scottish parliamentary elections. In the Presiding Officer’s view, no provision of the Social Security (Amendment) Scotland Bill relates to a protected subject matter. Therefore, the bill does not require a supermajority to be passed at stage 3.
Air ais
Business MotionAir adhart
Social Security (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill