Social Security (Scotland) Bill - Clause 2 and amendments to qualifying dates for payments

Moved several amendments to bring forward payment dates to 1 April 2023. Argued for extending assessment periods and allowing payments to those under benefit sanctions.

Rejected amendments suggesting a single payment by 1 April. Argued that spreading support throughout 2023 and into 2024 benefits more people, especially those with fluctuating incomes.

Supports additional payments covered by the Bill to address the cost of living crisis but recognises inherent limitations. Raises concerns about six-month lag between benefits and real-world prices, leading to a 6.2% lower value of benefits in April 2023 compared to pre-pandemic levels. Criticises one-off flat-rate payments as inequitable and poorly targeted, highlighting that these do not account for household size or composition and benefit households without children more than those with disabled members. Expresses dissatisfaction with arbitrary qualification conditions and the impact on lower-income families due to fluctuating incomes.

Mr Hywel Williams intervened, highlighting that the issue raised by Mr Neill leads to a differential effect in communities with high incidences of self-employment. He emphasised the clear disadvantage this creates for such communities.

Mr Linden emphasised that sanctioned claimants should not be denied cost of living payments, citing a case where people missed out due to minor infractions such as being late. He noted that 97.6% of sanctions are for minor issues and argued that the government's failure to address this is derelict. He also proposed new clauses for distributional analysis, household impacts assessments, and reintroducing the universal credit uplift to better support households in poverty.

[INTERVENTION] Mr Hendry agreed with Mr Linden that the removal of the universal credit uplift re-established a financial deficit for people and their families, suggesting it was an admission that universal credit is insufficient to meet living costs.

Mr. Mills argues against a lump sum payment, suggesting it could cause budgetary strain for vulnerable individuals and prefers the current three payments over the year to smooth out financial support. He criticises the discretionary fund as an unsuitable fallback and suggests that people who miss out on their £300 due to anomalies should be automatically fixed by the system rather than relying on discretionary funds.

Supports amendment 3, highlighting its impact on those paid every four weeks and advocating for eligibility assessment over two months. Also supports new clause 7 which emphasises the public health impacts of social security arrangements.

Supports the legislation, noting its significant impact on his constituents and emphasising certainty in benefit distribution. Acknowledges concerns about four-weekly paid individuals but prioritises the overall positive impact of benefits on local families.

She highlights the impact of austerity measures and additional payments failing to mitigate the cost of living crisis. She cites a poll indicating that 20% of her constituents fear using food banks due to financial strain, despite government initiatives. Amy also calls for an assessment on how legacy benefits not being uplifted during the pandemic impacts disabled people and urges for an urgent uprating of benefits. She supports amendment 2 which seeks to ensure those sanctioned by the Government’s cruel sanctions regime do not miss out on additional support.

She expresses concern about high sanction rates among constituents due to public transport issues, exacerbated by Brexit. She highlights the triple whammy of cost-of-living pressures and sanctions affecting her constituents.

Mr. Williams supports new clause 2, which calls for a detailed assessment of the cost of living support package announced by the Government. He argues that such ad-hoc payments are inferior to ensuring benefits keep pace with inflation and highlights the differential effect on Wales compared to other UK nations in terms of poverty levels and social security policies.

Argued against the Minister's position on sanctions, questioning why sanctioned individuals should be punished twice. He raised concerns about the fairness of allowing 6,600 households to be penalized under the proposed legislation.

Supported conditionality in universal credit as a way to prevent welfare dependency, citing that 20% of people in her constituency are on out-of-work benefits by choice. She emphasised the importance of incentivizing employment.

Called out the Minister for what she perceived as misleading statements, using the term 'guff' to describe it. She expressed frustration over high sanction rates in her constituency.

Expressed hope for a constructive meeting with relevant all-party groups to address the concerns raised about fluctuating earnings from self-employment, suggesting a need for a balanced approach.

The amendments aim to ensure that payments are made at the start of April rather than the end, providing timely assistance to those in need and helping them cope with inflation.

The Minister argues that while the amendments are well-intentioned, they are not feasible within the current system constraints. She emphasises the Government's commitment to supporting vulnerable individuals through existing measures like extending the household support fund.

The opposition recognises the need for assistance but criticises the Bill for not addressing fluctuating universal credit payments, sanctions, and lack of consideration for larger families. They note that while they will not divide the House, more needs to be done to support constituents.

The amendment aims to ensure a safety net for those sanctioned and eligible for cost of living payments. The Member regrets the Government's rejection of this amendment, fearing it will lead to higher numbers of households not receiving necessary support.