Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Committee

Welfare Reform Committee 27 January 2015

27 Jan 2015 · S4 · Welfare Reform Committee

Item of business

Welfare Funds (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Macintosh, Ken Lab Eastwood Watch on SPTV

As we know, the bill places no restrictions on the circumstances in which a local authority can decide to make an award in kind to an applicant; that is, in goods or vouchers, rather than in cash. Amendment 25 would not prevent councils from doing so, but would simply enable the Scottish Government to produce regulations detailing the circumstances in which a local authority could make a non-financial award. The power could be used to ensure, for example, that local authorities take applicants’ circumstances and preferences into account in deciding the nature of the award, and—following on from our previous discussion—to ensure that the applicant has more say and more choice in the process. It is clear from the discussion on the previous group of amendments that all colleagues on the committee, and the minister, share my belief that the principles of dignity and respect should underpin our approach to welfare in Scotland. On the other hand, it is unfortunately clear in the evidence from witnesses who gave evidence to the committee that a more common experience for people who rely on state support at times of difficulty is that they feel judged and stigmatised, and are made to feel small. Every bit as important—if not more so—than the principles that we state is how we put them into practice. We heard direct evidence that for people using vouchers or tokens in local shops the experience can be stigmatising and embarrassing, and can undermine applicants’ sense of dignity. In some circumstances, non-financial awards may be the most practical and cost-effective way of meeting applicants’ needs. However, we also heard that such awards can be problematic and difficult. We heard, for example, that issuing vouchers instead of cash can undermine a family’s ability to achieve best value by budgeting, spreading payments or shopping around for goods. Items that are awarded do not always meet the identified needs of the applicant and their household. Disabled applicants and other people who have very specific needs may be better placed than the local authority to identify and purchase items that meet their needs. For families in rural areas, the ability to find a shop that takes vouchers is likely to be limited, as well as stigmatising. Surely our intention with our approach to welfare in the bill is to build up resilience by, at the very least, leaving as much choice as possible in the hands of the recipient. The minister and I do not get paid in furniture or tokens: if we were, we might feel offended or patronised, so why should we be surprised if applicants for welfare feel similarly? Are we trying to make people feel worse or give them a hand up in their time of need? The SCVO briefing put it well: “For many, having cash to buy what they need is by far the best option—not least because it gives people some semblance of control and dignity at a time when they cannot control the factors which have led them into hardship.” Whatever our good intentions, what is also clear from the voluntary sector organisations that gave evidence is their concern that in-kind awards from the fund seem to have become the default position. Only half of all crisis grants and less than 20 per cent of community grant awards are made by way of cash, cheque or direct bank transfer. If people are looking to furnish a flat and need a whole pack of goods, a community grant award might be the best option. Amendment 25 does not rule that out: I want to make it clear that the amendment would not disbar local authorities from providing support in kind rather than in cash. The amendment will allow the Scottish Government to specify the conditions that would need to be satisfied before a non-financial award could be made. Such an approach would not prevent local authorities from making awards in kind, but it would ensure that proper consideration was given to the needs of the applicant in each case, and that decision making was more transparent. It would also provide recipients with a clear basis on which to challenge unsuitable awards and any lack of consideration on the part of local authorities. I move amendment 25.

Search Hansard contributions

Welfare Reform Committee 27 January 2015

In the same item of business