Seòmar agus comataidhean

As Mr Hoy will know as an elected councillor—at least for a short while yet—local authorities are independent entities with their own powers and responsibilities. It is for councils to decide how they manage day-to-day service delivery and decision-making processes, albeit within statutory limits and boundaries.

However, maintaining a close and constructive partnership with local government has and always will be a priority for the Scottish Government. That partnership approach is underpinned by regular meetings with councils and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, so that we can understand their needs and respond and support them accordingly. A range of portfolio cabinet secretaries and ministers, and officials, have regular contact on key shared priorities with individual local authorities, including East Lothian Council.

I presume that there is implicit praise for the Scottish Government from Mr Balfour on this issue, as there has been from across the United Kingdom. He makes some important points, and I would be happy to have further discussion with him on them.

We are in the launch period of the adult disability payment; we will then undertake case transfer. People can apply during the first phase of the adult disability payment pilot for indefinite awards; then, as part of the case transfer process, when they are reviewed after they have been transferred, they will be able to apply for an indefinite award. We are making awards only at the higher rate at the point of transfer, but we continue to engage with stakeholders on potential indefinite awards for those on the lower rate in due course. That is a further consideration.

In addition—this is an important point—we are cognisant of Mr Balfour’s point that, if someone feels that their condition has changed, they should be able to provoke a review to seek more support if they think that they are eligible for it. Those issues are all being considered, as they should be, and I would be happy to discuss them further with Mr Balfour.

That is not entirely relevant to the question about indefinite awards. Ms Duncan-Glancy is aware of the engagement that we have had with the committee and the UK Government on adult disability payment and the eligibility criteria for it. As she knows, we have committed to starting a review of adult disability payment later this year and into next year, and eligibility criteria will be assessed as part of that. We will consider matters, including passporting, going forward from there.

Again, I will say more about that shortly, time allowing, but in our employability programmes, we have shown—this is a conceptual point, but we all know it instinctively from anecdotal experience—that people respond much better to support and encouragement than they do to threat and fear. That is at the heart of our social security principles, which are dignity, fairness and respect. As Maggie Chapman emphasised, they have been shown to be effective when it comes to employability through our employability programmes.

Sanctions increase hardship and lead to poorer child wellbeing. As the report concludes,

“The high proportion of adverse impacts on measures of material hardship, health and child outcomes is sufficient to give significant cause for concern.”

As others have said—Kaukab Stewart emphasised this in her opening remarks—the unintended consequences of benefit sanctions are significant. The cost to the state and to all of us as citizens in different areas is significant. The report rightly emphasises that, and the costs, of course, fall on community organisations, whether that is food banks or third sector organisations; on UK Government departments, as Kaukab Stewart emphasised; and on the Scottish Government. That is exactly why we are right to be talking about the issue today. The costs that arise elsewhere in the system are significant and detrimental.

It is clear from the research and from today’s debate that sanctions are ineffective in helping people out of long-term unemployment. That is why, unlike UK Government approaches, our employment support services are voluntary, meaning that people are not driven to take part in them through fear of benefit sanctions. Instead, they are supported.

The UK Government suspended sanctions at the height of the pandemic, as I mentioned. However, since their reintroduction in June 2021, the number of sanctions being issued has risen sharply. Almost 50,000 people in the UK received a sanction in November last year.

I am a bit pressed for time now. I apologise to Mr Balfour.

Sanctions can cut a person’s standard universal credit payment or, in some cases, reduce it to zero. I want to make an important point in response to Alex Rowley. With regard to the Scottish social security system, no sanctions are applied to claimants of Scottish Government benefits. That is already the position. If sanctions are applied to someone who is in receipt of universal credit in the UK system, resulting in a zero award, they will still be entitled to and eligible for the Scottish benefits that are linked to universal credit. There are no sanctions in those cases, and we are doing what we can to help people if they receive a sanction in the UK system.

I ask Mr Rowley to write to me about the points that he made about information sharing in his region, and we will work together to make sure that we provide the information to give people more clarity, because we are absolutely committed to that.

I underline the fact that sanctions are nonsensical. The UK Government tells us that sanctions get people into work faster, but, as the research highlights, they are nothing more than a quick fix, and they adversely impact people’s longer-term outcomes. In many cases, sanctions are more about filling the gaps in the labour market that have been created by the UK Government’s bad economic management, including its Brexit position.

As the report highlights, sanctions are associated with a range of adverse impacts, including worsening job quality and stability in the longer term. Sanctions do not make sense and do not work. The report goes on to state that, although sanctions might get people into work quickly in the short term, they fundamentally lead to higher rates of exit to non-employment or economic inactivity, and to more rapid returns to benefit claiming. They do not help people to get into the labour market in a way that is good for them and the economy as a whole.

To back up Kaukab Stewart’s point, I think that it is important that the UK Government releases its research. I add my voice to the calls for the UK Government to issue that information in a transparent way.

Today’s debate and the research that has been generated prove that the UK Government’s punitive sanctions policy is ineffectual, unfair and fundamentally damaging to the very people the social security system should be supporting. The matter is clearly ideological on the part of the Conservative Party, which is why the UK Government does not want to release the information, but it should. That is why the Conservatives continue to have a policy position of sanctioning when it clearly does not work. They should change that position. I am glad that the vast majority of members of this Parliament have made the case clearly that our social security system should help people. When it comes to our devolved powers, that is exactly what we will focus on.

I, too, commend my colleague Kaukab Stewart for bringing this important issue, and her research, to the chamber, and I thank all colleagues who have contributed to this important debate. It has highlighted the strength of feeling among members on all—or certainly most—sides of the chamber that the punitive sanctions that are imposed by the UK Government in respect of universal credit simply do not work.

As colleagues have articulated, the Scottish Government has, for some time now, been deeply concerned about the UK Government’s current sanctions policy for universal credit claimants. As we have heard, it allows any claimant to be sanctioned at any time, at the discretion of jobcentre staff.

I take in good faith the statistics that Jeremy Balfour has relayed to Parliament. However, I point out—I will say more about this shortly—that although, during the pandemic, the Department for Work and Pensions took the decision to move away from using sanctions, they are now, to great concern, being reintroduced and potentially ramped up.

In relation to something else that Mr Balfour said, I express my gratitude for the many jobcentre staff, who do important work to help people, but the discretion of jobcentre staff to impose sanctions can be problematic, as we heard in different accounts from members across the chamber—some of them personal, as in Emma Roddick’s case.

Sanctions are just one of a number of issues with the current universal credit system, which is failing the people it is designed to help and should be helping, with punitive policies such as the five-week wait, which I cannot believe is still in place; the two-child limit; and the benefit cap, which the Scottish Government will mitigate, as we recently announced.

As today’s discussion has emphasised, there is long-standing evidence of the detrimental impact of sanctions, with the mental health charities Mind and Activity Alliance both reporting that sanctions can instil in many people a sense of fear and distrust of the welfare system. We are trying to change that through our new social security system, with regard to Scottish benefits.

A new study by the University of Glasgow further emphasises the wrong-headedness of sanctions and their appalling impact on people’s job stability and health, and more widely.

First, I offer my sincere apologies for the delay, Presiding Officer.

As I set out to Mr Rennie recently, the Scottish Government is delivering disability payments under an agency agreement with the Department for Work and Pensions. We are uprating those benefits—the child disability payment and the adult disability payment—by 3.1 per cent, in line with the September consumer prices index. The reason for that is that, while we launch our benefits—the adult disability payment is our 12th benefit—and undertake case transfer into our system, it is extremely important that we do not create a two-tier system, and that Scottish recipients of working-age disability living allowance, child disability living allowance and the personal independence payment receive the same rates of payment as those on the Scottish child disability payment and adult disability payment benefits. Until the transfer process is complete, we cannot diverge from the DWP’s approach.

The hyperbole that was used by Mr Cole-Hamilton—and, previously, by Mr Rennie—is unfortunate. The Parliament passed the Social Security Act (Scotland) 2018. Since then, we have created our new agency, which is performing well. We have delivered 12 benefits, seven of which are available only in Scotland and not in the rest of the United Kingdom. It has been a remarkable process of significant achievement and delivery, through a pandemic during which both Governments—not just the Scottish Government, but the UK Government—had to consider priorities and resources. In that period, we delivered the Scottish child payment, which is not available in the rest of the UK. I know that that benefit is supported across the chamber.

We all want social security in Scotland to work, so it is important that we deal in accuracy, clarity and context. It would be better for the Liberal Democrats to participate positively and constructively in a shared agenda to deliver social security in Scotland. Mr Cole-Hamilton has never requested a meeting with me on social security, but he would be welcome to do so. If he would like a meeting, I can apprise him of the reality of the situation and the achievements of the Scottish Government.

I urge members to support the SSI.

As Mr Marra will be aware, councils are independent corporate bodies that are separate from the Scottish Government. Councils conduct internal scrutiny of their own activities through an audit or scrutiny committee, which examines performance and the management of risk in a council. The matters that the member raised are therefore for Dundee City Council to review and address.

I understand that the scrutiny committee that has been looking at the matters that the member raised has met in recent weeks. Councillors from Opposition parties chair and co-chair that committee. The Olympia building, which Mr Marra referred to, is operated by an arm’s-length external organisation that has councillors on its board to give oversight from a cross-section of political parties.

I understand that the scrutiny board has the ability to investigate broadly, with broad power. As I said, the matters that were raised are for Dundee City Council to review and address, but if Mr Marra wants to engage in written correspondence, I will be happy to receive it. We could also consider the council getting in touch with the Scottish Government to seek support and assistance, if it wanted to do so.

I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to comment on the individual case that the member raised. However, I am sure that he is aware of the relevant bodies to take the matter up with.