Hansard

I am delighted to open this stage 1 debate on the general principles of the Welfare Funds (Scotland) Bill. I extend my gratitude to Michael McMahon and the members of the Welfare Reform Committee for both their scrutiny of the bill and their stage 1 report on it. Thanks are also due to the Finance Committee and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for their consideration of the bill and their contributions to the lead committee’s scrutiny.

The Welfare Reform Committee should be commended for taking evidence from such a wide range of organisations and individuals. The evidence from users of the fund was especially compelling. I am grateful to those stakeholders for the considered views that they offered to the committee and also for their responses to the numerous Scottish Government consultations, which helped to shape both the policy objectives of the interim Scottish welfare fund and the proposals in the bill.

The committee’s conclusion that the bill provides a suitable framework for establishing the interim Scottish welfare fund on a secure statutory footing is to be welcomed. It captures well what the Government wants to achieve through the bill—that is, to put in place for people on low incomes a permanent and reliable safety net in which they can have confidence.

The committee made a number of suggestions, detailed recommendations and comments, and it called on the Government to consider and respond to them during the later stages of the bill’s parliamentary scrutiny. The Government is still reflecting on some of them, and I will set out our position on all of them in our response to the report prior to stage 2 proceedings. In this afternoon’s debate, the focus should be on the principles of the bill and what we want to achieve through it, although I will try to address some of the more significant points that the committee raised.

It has to be said that the Welfare Funds (Scotland) Bill is a slightly unusual bill in that it seeks to put an existing scheme on to a statutory footing. Members will be aware that the Scottish welfare fund has been operating on a voluntary, interim basis since April 2013, following agreement between the Scottish ministers and Convention of Scottish Local Authorities leaders. It is clear to me from the evidence that the committee heard, and from its report, that delivery of the current scheme is generally viewed in a positive fashion, albeit that there is scope to improve practice.

Most people have told us and the committee that local authorities are the right people to be delivering the fund and that the experience of applicants is generally more positive than under the previous Department for Work and Pensions scheme. Indeed, Scott Robertson from Quarriers observed at the evidence session on 7 October:

“The comparison between the new system and the previous system is like night and day.”—[Official Report, Welfare Reform Committee, 7 October 2014; c 5.]

It is also worth noting that there is no longer an equivalent local welfare scheme in operation across England, so this is a clear example of this Government taking a distinctive approach to protecting vulnerable people in Scotland. Feedback on the patchwork of provision in England gives me confidence that the Scottish Government is doing the right thing in the bill. However, that does not mean that we are complacent. Since the fund was launched, we have done a lot of work to ensure that lessons are learned and good practice is shared, and that work will continue as we move towards the permanent arrangements.

We have been working extensively with local authority practitioners and third sector stakeholders to ensure that learning from the interim scheme is captured and good practice is shared. Only last month, a series of decision-making workshops were held with local authority practitioners across the country to help them to hone their decision-making skills. The workshops included case studies from third sector partners such as Who Cares? Scotland, and Engender, which helped to enhance the quality-improvement measures that we are undertaking with COSLA to make the Scottish welfare fund as effective as possible.

Given its high-level nature, the bill has not been particularly affected by that, but the work will be of great value when we develop the associated regulations and detailed guidance that will really set out how welfare funds will operate under the permanent arrangements.

It would be appropriate at this point to reflect on the rationale for the bill. There were three reasons behind its introduction. First, the bill demonstrates a long-term commitment to the Scottish welfare fund; as I said earlier, the current scheme is administered voluntarily under an agreement between the Scottish ministers and COSLA leaders. Secondly, the bill provides the option of the independent review of cases by the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, which would not be possible without the bill. Finally, the bill allows for the funding for the welfare funds to be ring fenced if required.

The bill is designed to set a high-level framework that reflects the wording of the section 30 order that gave the powers to the Scottish Parliament to deliver the type of assistance that is provided by the current Scottish welfare fund. The regulations and the associated statutory guidance will set out the detail of how the funds should operate. We will consult on draft regulations and guidance, informed by the evidence that the Welfare Reform Committee has heard on the bill, before the permanent arrangements come into force.

We consulted on a draft bill between November last year and February this year. The most significant change to the draft bill that we consulted on was the proposal that the SPSO should have powers to carry out independent reviews of local authority decisions. Responses to the consultation on the best option for reviewing were divided, but I am convinced that the SPSO best meets the criteria for second-tier reviews that we set out in our consultation.

Most importantly, the SPSO’s independence will ensure that the right decisions are made for applicants. That will give them and the people who work with them greater confidence in the Scottish welfare funds. The SPSO’s national overview will also play an important role in continuing to improve the quality of decision making and helping to maintain the national character of the scheme.

I know that there is significant interest in how the SPSO will discharge its responsibilities with the independent review function that is proposed in the bill; indeed, the ombudsman raised that matter in his written evidence to the committee. We have been in discussion with the ombudsman on how best to enable him to have the powers that he regards as necessary to discharge the proposed review function as effectively as possible. We intend to lodge amendments at stage 2 that will give the SPSO powers in relation to reviews that match its existing powers in relation to complaints in areas such as evidence gathering, confidentiality and reporting.

I know that stakeholders have very different views on the powers to outsource the administration of welfare funds under section 3 of the bill. That was included in the bill because the service is new and we wanted to provide flexibility for the varying approaches to delivery among local authorities. However, others have expressed concerns that the provision would introduce the possibility of outsourcing to private sector firms, and they have highlighted issues with the delivery of welfare-related services by the private sector.

I have given a lot of consideration to the Scottish welfare fund’s unique position in providing a safety net to a local authority’s most vulnerable people and the value added by the local knowledge, signposting and referral to other services as part of a Scottish welfare fund application. I have also considered the different positions that stakeholders hold in the debate, including the position that is taken in the committee’s stage 1 report.

Although I can see a case for local authorities collaborating to provide services across boundaries, I have concluded that effective provision of the Scottish welfare fund is not consistent with outsourcing the service. I therefore intend to lodge an amendment at stage 2 to remove from the bill the ability of local authorities to outsource the provision of welfare funds. [Applause.]

It is clear from the response in the chamber that that is welcome. I welcome that welcome. It was never the intention that the service could be outsourced to the private sector. Although that was never the intention and that was never suggested, it is clear that there was a perception in the evidence that was put to the committee that that could happen and was going to happen. It is right to be very clear at this stage that that ability will be removed from the bill and that we will lodge an amendment to that effect at stage 2.

As the committee recognised, the bill is about putting the interim Scottish welfare fund on a more secure statutory footing. It will enable us to demonstrate a long-term commitment to the Scottish welfare fund, provide for independent review of welfare fund applications and give us the flexibility to ring fence the funding provided.

The bill is about helping the most vulnerable people in our communities the length and breadth of Scotland, and I want to work with all members and all parties across the chamber to secure those objectives. The fact that we have had the interim Scottish welfare fund on a voluntary basis has allowed us to learn a lot of lessons. We hope to progress matters through the bill, and the regulations will set out in detail how we proceed.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Welfare Funds (Scotland) Bill.