Seòmar agus comataidhean

The budget discussions have not provided me or, as far as I am aware, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government with any details yet from any other party about what changes they would like to make on social security, whether those relate to the mitigation measures or other measures. We are still very much in the foothills of those discussions and my door remains open. Clearly, when we are looking at the fiscal sustainability of social security, there are some areas where the expenditure that we have to provide as the Scottish Government could be freed up if we did not have to do the UK Government’s job for it. If the UK Government were to mitigate the two-child limit—and I notice some press activity that suggests that it may be coming to that decision—the First Minister has already said that we would be able to reinvest the money that we plan to spend mitigating the two-child limit on other anti-poverty measures. Imagine what we could do if the UK Government also took away, at source, the bedroom tax, which we currently spend another £80 million on. I could go on about the different mitigation measures. Those are the ones where we could free up money and allow the Scottish Government to invest it elsewhere.

At this point, no.

That is an important aspect for the Government to look at. We also have evidence from disabled people’s organisations, which has come through loud and clear, not because of changes that we were looking to make to ADP but because DPOs were concerned about changes that the UK Government was due to make. They spoke clearly about how taking away a disability payment could reduce disabled people’s ability to get into or stay in employment.

As for what the Scottish Government is undertaking, Professor Linda Bauld is already looking at research on expenditure in the Government on ADP. That requires further investigation and support not just to demonstrate the impact that is being made but to ensure that we have a positive narrative—this goes back to the convener’s first question—about why this is an investment in the people of Scotland that we should be proud of making, rather than something to be chipped away at, as appears to be the case elsewhere in the UK.

The DWP does not hold that information for the personal independence payment and we do not hold it for ADP. It is not part of the application process because ADP is not means tested. We would not collect that information.

An important aspect of this that I will come back to is that many people who are applying due to a mental health condition or behavioural conditions are already in employment. One of the reasons why we have seen an increase in people coming forward for ADP because of mental health issues or neurodiversity is that we are increasing the support for people to come forward for something that they have always been entitled to but never felt that they could apply for because of the stigma or the judgment. The fact that we have a system that encourages people to apply for benefits to which they are entitled is really important; it is about taking stigma away.

The work that is being done overall, not just by Government but in society, whereby we have a much more open discussion about mental health, is particularly important. We need to have supportive employability schemes to allow people who are not in employment back into the labour market. Social security is one aspect, but employability schemes that support and wrap around a person are also particularly important. Very recently I announced the additional investment that the Scottish Government is undertaking to ensure that employability support for disabled people in particular is available right across Scotland. It is about employability linking in with social security to ensure that support is provided for those who can get back into the labour market or those who wish to do so but do not have the ability at this time.

It is very important that we listen to stakeholders about their asks of the Government to go further, whether it is on social security policy or elsewhere. I am very conscious of the support that social security provides. We discussed earlier the impact that it has for disabled people, carers and those on low incomes in assisting and supporting them. Given everything that I said at the start of the evidence session, I absolutely recognise the impact that that investment has had and I recognise the calls for us to go further.

This comes down to the decisions that the Government will have to take, looking not just at the calls on us to increase social security payments for people but at the additional asks that are coming in from Government. The calls that come from all political parties are for us to look in the round at our expenditure and assess whether additional expenditure on social security would be the best way to support an individual or a group of people or whether that best way would be an investment elsewhere or a change of policy elsewhere.

Those are the types of discussions that we will be having during the budget to ensure that we are spending the money effectively, because I take very seriously the challenge that is rightly put to Government about the fiscal sustainability of our plans. That is exactly why we have the MTFS there to look at those, because we have additional asks of what people want Government to do but we also have a challenge that we must balance the budget.

That is a benefit that successive UK Governments have effectively not changed in 75 years or so. It is a massively out-of-date policy that is essentially based on industrial injuries sustained in heavy industry. The consultation that we recently undertook gave two options: to effectively lift the outdated system directly into Social Security Scotland; or to ask the DWP to hold that for us while we do the policy work to make the benefit fit for purpose. The results showed that there was a preference for us to look at the benefit in a more holistic sense.

That will take time because, as I said, the benefit has not been touched for decades, which means that there is a lot to unpick. We have established a committee for that which sits outwith Government, although it is supported by officials. It is undertaking a more holistic view of the benefit, given the views that were expressed in the consultation process. The benefit will carry on under an agency agreement in order to ensure that those who receive the benefit at the moment continue to receive it.

If we want to move past the back-and-forth critique that the Scottish Government’s social security expenditure is unaffordable or unsustainable, the answers must come back about what policies people want to be changed—even if I fundamentally disagree with the proposals that are made—so that the trajectory changes.

The approach is based on eligibility. I might fundamentally disagree with suggestions that are made, but suggestions would at least move us past the discussion that we are having at the moment, which does not take us far. That is exactly why we have set out in the MTFS and the fiscal sustainability delivery plan how we propose to look at the financial sustainability work. It is for others to come up with other suggestions; my door is always open.

It is important that we look at the figures in the round. Of the clients who responded, 69 per cent said that the SCP had had no impact on their decisions about employment or that it was not applicable. For the 29 per cent who reported an impact, the most common impact was that the payment was helping them with work costs such as travelling or clothing, followed by enabling them to stay in work or work more hours. It is important to look at how the payment has helped people to get into employment, stay in employment or increase their hours, but the analysis that the Scottish Government published in 2024 concluded that, at the current levels, the payment is not negatively affecting labour market outcomes at scale.

I know that people ask us to increase the Scottish child payment. As well as considering the budgetary impact of that on the Scottish Government, we would look at any impact that that might or might not have on the labour market. That is an important aspect but, at this point, it looks as if the payment is, in the main, having no impact or having a very positive impact on families by allowing them to make choices about staying in employment.

The analysis that I just referred to pointed to evidence on the labour market impact of a cliff edge, and it does not appear to support a compelling policy rationale for implementing a trigger. That is an important aspect of that evaluation. Even if people wished to see a taper, they would need to think about how that would be done. That could not be done with the processes that we have, so it would require new systems in social security.

Some people say that we should look at people’s incomes, that we should have more means testing and that we should taper or look at further targeting—I am not saying that Marie McNair is suggesting that for all benefits or one benefit, but it ties into the question that she asked. That approach would require information that we do not have, because we do not need to collect people’s income data at this point. If we needed that, it would have to be collected and analysed. That would have an impact on how complex the process was and therefore on its cost. For all such aspects, as well as the impact on individuals, we would need to think about the impact on cost of delivering a system that included tapers or an analysis of anybody’s income.