Official Report 1201KB pdf
Social Justice
Good afternoon. The first item of business this afternoon is portfolio question time, and the portfolio on this occasion is social justice. I remind members who wish to ask a supplementary question to press their request-to-speak button during the relevant question. As members will be aware, we are pretty tight for time across the afternoon, so there is the usual appeal for brevity.
Question 1 has not been lodged.
Budget 2025-26 (Anti-racism Promotion)
To ask the Scottish Government how its draft budget 2025-26 will contribute towards promoting anti-racism campaigns and initiatives. (S6O-04243)
Presiding Officer, it is difficult to hear on the front bench. I do not know what it is like in the rest of the chamber, but the sound is very quiet here.
I think that you are right, minister. We will investigate that. Ms Stewart, if you are able to respond to the question, we will try to deal with the audio.
The Scottish Government is committed to working with partners across the public and third sectors to embed anti-racism and advance the race equality framework, including through delivery of the anti-racism observatory, as stated in our programme for government for 2024-25.
The details of spending commitments are subject to the outcome of spending reviews by the Scottish Government and approval of annual budget bills by the Scottish Parliament. The equality and human rights fund for 2021-25 represents an overall £1 million increase on previous funding, with an additional £6.3 million—22 per cent—dedicated to race equality and anti-racism.
Far-right activity stoking anti-migrant rhetoric and violence is on the rise around the world. High-profile figures are casually using fascist gestures and hateful language. Blatantly racist slogans and stickers are appearing with increasing frequency on bus stops, lamp posts and the like in Aberdeen and elsewhere. It is no wonder that many members of our diverse communities feel increasingly targeted and marginalised.
Does the minister agree that we all have a responsibility, as part of our anti-racist practice, to stand up to and challenge racism wherever we encounter it? What work is under way with partners, including in the public sector, who support marginalised people, have responsibilities to protect them or have responsibilities to tackle racism?
We unequivocally condemn all forms of prejudice or hatred, including racism. They have absolutely no place in our society, and nobody should ever be subjected to them. The Scottish Government is committed to building cohesive communities within which divisive narratives will not resonate. It is everyone’s responsibility to challenge hatred. We have been working closely with partners, including third sector organisations, justice organisations and local authorities, to tackle and prevent hatred and prejudice and to support and protect the marginalised communities that they serve.
Reinforced Autoclaved Aerated Concrete (Dundee)
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete being found in current and formerly council-owned residential properties in Dundee. (S6O-04244)
I recognise that it is a very difficult time for those households that are affected by RAAC.
In line with Institution of Structural Engineers’ guidance, Dundee City Council assessed the RAAC in its rented homes as mainly low or medium risk and commenced a programme of inspections. The council is encouraging private owners to undertake their own surveys to identify the most appropriate action.
RAAC is regarded as an issue of building maintenance, with responsibility being a matter for property owners, informed by professional advice and best practice. We are working alongside Dundee City Council to ensure that affected households are supported appropriately.
In Dundee, 81 blocks of flats and 293 cottages, 133 of which have been bought from the council, have been found to have RAAC. Dundee residents in places such as Craigie and Menzieshill and residents in Milton Street in Monifieth tell me that they have been abandoned by their councils and the Government. I am afraid that the minister’s answer will have just reinforced that view.
A fortnight ago, the First Minister told me that the Government would engage with councils and residents to navigate them through the situation. When can Dundee residents affected by RAAC expect to hear from the minister so that a meeting can be set up with them and the council?
Obviously, the situation in Aberdeen has been raised in the Parliament, too. I have met residents and the council on a number of occasions, and officials continue to do so. I have not had a meeting request from Dundee City Council on that specific issue. Of course, we would be happy to consider such a request.
We are engaging with the United Kingdom Government on the matter. I have a meeting with my UK Government counterpart in the next week or two, at which I will raise the issue of financial support to deal with RAAC. The previous UK Government said that it would support the provision of whatever funding was required. I will raise that issue with the UK Government.
Carer Support Payment
To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on whether carer support payment should be classed as income by the Department for Work and Pensions. (S6O-04245)
Carer support payment has been designed to largely mirror carers allowance to protect carers in Scotland by providing them with a safe and secure transfer of benefits. We have worked closely with the DWP and other United Kingdom Government departments to ensure that our benefit interacts with wider support in the same way that carers allowance does, so that carers can continue to get the support that they previously relied on.
When we introduce new extra support, such as the carers allowance supplement and the carers additional person payment, which we intend to introduce in the future, our fiscal framework agreement with the UK Government ensures that that extra support will not lead to reductions in other benefits.
Constituents have contacted me to report that the carer support payment will make a great difference to them, only for the DWP to remove the same amount from universal credit, because it is classed as income. Are discussions taking place with the UK Government to ensure that a no-detriment agreement can be put in place to allow carers in Scotland to benefit from the additional money?
As I mentioned in my original answer, carer support payment mirrors carers allowance. One reason for that is that it has the same purpose as carers allowance—it is an income replacement benefit for people who are less able to work because they have caring responsibilities. That means that it is treated as income when other income replacement benefits, such as universal credit, are calculated, but carers are still better off because an extra amount, which is called the carer element, can be included in the calculation.
Carers in Scotland get the extra support of the carers allowance supplement, which is not available in the rest of the UK, and, as I mentioned in my original answer, we are continuing our work to introduce the carers additional person payment. We are working with the UK Government to ensure that receipt of those benefits does not lead to reductions in DWP benefits.
It appears that the same thing is happening with council tax and through Social Security Scotland. On transfer to universal credit, some carer support payment claimants are being hit with immediate demands for payment of full council tax. My constituent was sent a bill of £350, which had to be paid in short order.
Staff and managers are aware of the issue, but they are only able to do a manual workaround. What can the cabinet secretary do to urgently update the information technology systems of local government, Social Security Scotland and the DWP to remove that unacceptable burden from people who receive benefits and staff who work in the system?
Clearly, the IT systems of local government and the DWP are a matter for those organisations, but Social Security Scotland continually reviews how its processes can be developed.
We are engaging with the DWP, which is investigating the situation and working quickly to resolve any issues, and updated guidance has been issued to local authorities on the matter that Ms Duncan-Glancy has raised. In the meantime, I recommend that clients who are experiencing problems or have any concerns should contact the DWP or their local authority, which can investigate their case and correct any issues.
“Economic Impacts of Short-term Lets in Scotland”
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the report, “Economic Impacts of Short-term Lets in Scotland”, specifically in relation to the Scottish Borders. (S6O-04246)
Tourism is an important part of Scotland’s economy. The short-term let market, which has grown significantly in recent years, makes a strong contribution, as is highlighted in the report.
We continue to work with the sector and local authorities to build Scotland’s reputation as a high-quality tourist destination, while balancing demand for homes during a time of housing emergency, by introducing regulations to safeguard guests, allocating an additional £2 million in funding to tackle empty homes, and providing £4 million for tourism infrastructure and £2 million to encourage visits to more of Scotland’s national attractions, all of which is furthering our national tourism strategy, as set out in “Scotland Outlook 2030: Responsible tourism for a sustainable future”.
The Scottish National Party Government has its priorities all wrong, because short-term lets such as self-catering generate £34 million and support 1,100 people in the Borders alone, while having a negligible impact on housing markets. In contrast, empty homes, of which there are almost 2,000 in the Borders, outnumber self-catering properties and offer no economic benefit.
Does the minister agree that the Scottish Government must do more to support Scotland’s £1 billion self-catering industry and should refocus its efforts on tackling economically inactive empty homes to get more people into them?
I already highlighted the additional £2 million for this year and the work that the Scottish Government has done to deliver 11,000 empty homes back into use in recent years. We continue to focus on that, but it is important to achieve a balance. You are right to mention empty homes but I do not share your view of the impact of the licensing scheme on tourism. We must look at the benefits that hosts and operators get from the scheme, such as being able to promote safe and high-quality businesses. We do not want to see hosts leaving the sector, but there is a range of factors to consider.
We have been supporting tourism. Through VisitScotland, we have pulled together an expert group to review the implementation of the scheme and that group will continue advising us on the issue.
Rachael Hamilton it is right to say that we should value the sector, especially in areas such as the Scottish Borders, but balance is important. We must ensure that there are sufficient homes for workers to be able to service the industry in order to keep it thriving. Does the minister think that control areas—which I support, although I do not support licensing—were designed with the east neuk and St Andrews in mind when the scheme was being put together?
Mr Rennie makes an important point. Short-term let control areas were brought in separately to the licensing scheme and allow planning authorities to consider the impacts on the amenity and character of areas with high concentrations of short-term let accommodation. It is up to local authorities to decide whether to designate the whole authority or, as you suggested Mr Rennie, to apply it to much tighter areas, such as those you mentioned in your question.
Please speak always through the chair, minister.
Social Security Access (Motherwell and Wishaw)
To ask the Scottish Government how it is supporting people in Motherwell and Wishaw in accessing social security entitlements. (S6O-04247)
Through our benefit take-up strategy, we are implementing initiatives to support people to access their entitlements. That includes targeted marketing of payments and assistance from local delivery teams to help people apply, with advisers available at co-located venues in Wishaw and Motherwell.
The draft budget for 2025-26 includes more than £12.8 million for free income maximisation support and welfare and debt advice. Our investment supports advice services, which are delivered in many ways, including face to face, by telephone and on-line.
In addition, welfare advice and health partnerships provide financial advice directly in three general practices in the member’s North Lanarkshire constituency.
Many vulnerable people find it particularly difficult to navigate the Department for Work and Pensions system, especially given the stigmatising language that we continue to hear from the United Kingdom Government about cutting social security bills. My Motherwell and Wishaw constituents have experienced errors in debt calculation and issues with the direct payment of their universal credit to third parties, especially energy companies. I would be happy to share examples with the cabinet secretary.
Will the cabinet secretary press the UK Government on ensuring that the current system of direct payments to third parties, including energy companies, is reviewed to ensure accuracy, fairness and proper safeguarding measures for vulnerable claimants?
I share the member’s concern about some of the language regarding social security that we see being used by the Conservatives, by the UK Labour Government and, indeed, by Scottish Labour in its discussion of “handouts”.
However, unlike the Department for Work and Pensions, we do not have powers to make direct deductions for third-party services. The Scottish Government is committed to ensuring that we operate with fairness, dignity and respect for all clients, including in our work on debt collection.
The UK Government’s approach, which includes deductions for advance payments and historical overpayments, often leaves people with too little to live on. I will continue to press the UK Government to adopt fairer measures that safeguard people, including the work towards the essentials guarantee. The member raises a very important point about the impact that that can have on our constituents.
Social Security Scotland (Spending)
To ask the Scottish Government what plans it has to mitigate against future increases to Social Security Scotland’s overall spend on benefits. (S6O-04248)
Social security is an investment in the people of Scotland. All Governments should be encouraging more people to take up the benefits that they are entitled to. The Scottish Government is investing around £6.9 billion in social security benefits in 2025-26, and that is projected to increase to £8.7 billion in 2029-30. The Scottish Government is committed to ensuring that finances remain on a sustainable trajectory and we will publish our next medium-term financial strategy later this year, alongside a fiscal sustainability delivery plan.
That is 14 per cent of next year’s budget being spent on social security. As the cabinet secretary says, that will rise to £8.7 billion in 2029. By the way, that is £1 million an hour. Although the First Minister claims, rightly, that the solution to poverty is good work and warm homes, the SNP seems to celebrate that increase. It should focus on reducing dependency by growing the economy and expanding the workforce. It should be aiming to cut the benefits bill, not planning to increase it exponentially. What will the cabinet secretary do to focus on tackling worklessness and helping benefit claimants to get back to work?
I think that we have just heard some of that stigmatising language in the chamber this afternoon. [Interruption.] When we talk about “dependency”—
That is ridiculous. [Interruption.]
Cabinet secretary, will you resume your seat for a second? I will not tolerate barracking across the chamber. We had that at First Minister’s question time and we are not going to have it during portfolio questions. We are going to listen to the questions and to the cabinet secretary responding to them.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I apologise for shouting across the chamber, but I hope that you will understand that calling work a stigma is ridiculous.
That is not a point of order. You are denying people the opportunity to come in with supplementary questions, because we are tied up with this nonsense. I ask the cabinet secretary to resume answering the question, and we will then move on.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
Through social security, the Scottish Government invests in low-income families, disabled people and carers. I am not sure which part of the “dependency” Mr Kerr believes that we need to get rid of—whether it is disabled people, carers or those on low incomes—but I am disappointed that he would suggest that dependency is an issue.
Mr Kerr is potentially unaware of the many people who are already in work but still receive benefits due to the inadequate low pay that they receive. He is also probably unaware of the fact that the vast majority of the increase in expenditure on social security is covered by block grant adjustments because UK forecasts are increasing, particularly in relation to disabled people.
A lot of the increase in Scottish Government expenditure is due to the fact that we mitigate the worst excesses of his party when it was in power. Disappointingly, not only will we have to continue to do so, but we will have to expand that mitigation due to the processes that we now have to put in place to mitigate the decisions of the current UK Government.
The cabinet secretary and I have discussed in committee our changing demographics, the demand-led nature of social security and the fact that it is vital that social security operates flexibly, with efficient systems to reduce waste. We need to be sure that spending on information technology systems, overpayments and errors is as minimal as possible in order to free up money for the funding that goes into our constituents’ pockets. Given that, how does the cabinet secretary respond to recent reports that overpayments of £1.1 million in just three months were written off as official errors by Social Security Scotland? What action is she taking alongside the agency to make sure that we focus on reducing that waste and fraud in order to protect social security claimants?
I thank Mr O’Kane for his question, because that is one of the areas in which we have to challenge ourselves to continue to do better. Part of the area that we need to work on is our reliance on the material that comes from the DWP. For example, are errors made because people are not due universal credit but are told that they are, so they receive the Scottish child payment?
There is integration between the two systems, which means that we have to check for official error at every stage. We also check that for benefits that are only in Social Security Scotland’s remit. The member raised an important point about the need to continue to challenge such errors, which is why there is continuous improvement and investment in Social Security Scotland’s digital systems to reduce the number of manual workarounds and to improve the IT systems. That work continues.
On the whole, the expenditure related to how Social Security Scotland administers social security compares well with the cost to the DWP. It does not cost more for Social Security Scotland to deliver the benefits, but it delivers them in a more humane fashion.
Food Insecurity
To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of any impact of the current cost of living crisis on the prevalence of food insecurity and reliance on food banks. (S6O-04249)
The Scottish Government tracks food insecurity through the Scottish health survey. In 2023, results showed that 14 per cent of adults reported experiencing food insecurity, which is an increase from 9 per cent in 2021, and it is the highest level since the time series began in 2017. Younger adults were more likely to experience food insecurity than older adults, and adults who experience food insecurity have below-average life satisfaction and much lower levels of mental wellbeing.
Social security support, such as the Scottish child payment and best start foods, has helped Scottish households to secure, proportionately, the lowest food bank usage in the United Kingdom, but it is clear that efforts must be redoubled to remove the need for food banks entirely. How will the cabinet secretary’s commitment to a cash-first approach contribute to tackling food insecurity in Scotland?
Scotland is the first nation to publish a plan that works toward ending the need for food banks, and we are taking forward nine actions over three years to improve the response to crisis using a cash-first approach. That is backed up by investment of up to £1.8 million in the cash-first programme, which supports eight public sector and third sector partnerships to strengthen urgent access to cash in a crisis and reduce the need for food parcels. The Trussell Trust and the Independent Food Aid Network agree that that approach is right. We are determined to see what more we can do to ensure that we take a cash-first approach, because it is making a real difference to people by delivering a much more dignified response to an emergency.
That concludes portfolio questions on social justice. There will be a brief pause before we move to the next item of business, to allow those on the front benches to change places.
Air ais
Women’s Role in Net ZeroAir adhart
Fatal Accident Inquiries (Deaths in Custody)