I will be reasonably brief. I place on the record my thanks to the expert group’s chair, Martyn Evans, and to all its members. I know that some of the members appeared in front of the committee before the summer recess. The report that the group has produced for our consideration is solid, robust and comprehensive. Coupled with the group’s first report, it would provide a newly independent Scotland with a solid foundation on which to build a better and more fit-for-purpose welfare system.
It is appropriate to point out with sadness—I am sure that all committee members share it—that Professor Ailsa McKay, who was a member of the group, passed away before the group concluded its work. I know that her input to the group was hugely valuable and I have no doubt that she would have continued to make a valuable contribution. I record my thanks to her for the work that she did on the group and for her enormous contribution to the policy area over a long period.
We are discussing the group’s second report, as I said. The group’s first report was technical; it looked at the costs of welfare in an independent Scotland and the infrastructure that is in place to support the delivery of the welfare system. In that report, the group found that the Scottish Government’s forecasts were a reasonable estimate of the costs that would be involved—the UK Government’s analysis paper mirrored those estimates.
We know that Scotland is well placed to deliver the functions that are needed for a welfare system. The group found that Scotland delivers almost all parts of the current UK benefits system to people who live in Scotland from locations in Scotland. We also deliver significant services to England, which run into the millions.
For the second report, I asked the group to look at options for change, including the principles that should underpin reform, how those principles might be reflected in supporting people into work and how we as a society should best support those who cannot work and help them to have a decent standard of living and to contribute fully to society. That was not an easy remit, but the group has come up with a solid piece of work that deals with key issues, such as in-work poverty, while outlining a way forward that would put trust back into the system.
The report details some 40 recommendations, but the finding at its heart is striking: trust in the system has broken down. That applies to the wider public’s trust that their taxes are contributing to a fair system and to welfare system recipients’ trust that they are being treated with dignity and respect and that their contribution is being recognised.
I will not run through all the recommendations, because I know that we will get into the detail in our discussion. The Government said that it would immediately accept a number of the recommendations, which were on establishing a national convention, increasing carers allowance, restoring the link between benefits and the cost of living, abolishing the bedroom tax, replacing the current system of sanctions and abolishing the current work capability assessment, which determines the ability of the sick and the disabled to work.
We are looking carefully at a range of other recommendations, which need to be considered in all their complexity. However, we are looking favourably at the other recommendations, not least of which is the suggestion that we should over time increase the minimum wage to match the living wage. That would be hugely important in dealing with the growing problem of in-work poverty in this country.
We are also looking at alternatives to the work programme—how we support those with a disability to enter and stay in work—and the proposal for the introduction of a new social security allowance.
One of the most powerful things about the report, which we must all give further thought to, was the suggestion that we need a radically different way of supporting sick and disabled people. The analogy was drawn with the concerted efforts that were brought to bear on lifting pensioners out of poverty. We need a similar holistic approach to dealing with those with long-term disabilities who are not likely to be capable of using work as a route out of poverty.
I am very pleased with the report, which gives us a solid base to work on. I am very keen to hear the committee’s views and answer questions.