Chamber and committees

As a long-standing campaigner against the negative impacts of the so-called “welfare reforms” of the UK benefits system, I am keen to participate in the debate. I congratulate Kaukab Stewart for securing it and for highlighting the important work done by the researchers on behalf of Glasgow university.

It is no surprise to see that they conclude that benefit sanctions do not work and that, in fact, they have a detrimental impact on claimants and their children. The UK sanctions regime has inflicted much misery and hardship on many of our constituents for many years, for no real positive return. It was introduced as part of a callous war on welfare for political impact and gain. It is a vehicle for penalising those who are in need of benefits that has been used by successive UK Governments for many years. The Tories, Labour and the Liberals have all used them. In fact, Dr David Webster, an honorary senior research fellow at the University of Glasgow, has pointed out that the number of sanctions in the UK rose to among its highest levels when the Labour Party’s John Hutton was secretary of state at the Department for Work and Pensions.

The main benefit to which sanctions are now applied is, of course, universal credit. So, the appalling sanctions regime is added to all the other unjust parts of that benefit: the five-week wait that forces people into debt, the removal of the premiums for disabled people, the two-child policy and its appalling rape clause—the list goes on.

In his recent regular briefing on sanctions, Dr Webster points out that there is a “rapid rise” in benefits sanctions again. He states that the harshening of the conditionality policy with the introduction of the DWP way to work scheme is also bound to increase the numbers of sanctions, despite that approach being widely criticised.

I thank Inclusion Scotland for its very helpful briefing, in which it points out that sanctions have resulted in many disabled people and their families experiencing greater poverty in work than when they were unemployed. More will face such poverty in the future as universal credit is rolled out. The briefing also agrees with Dr Webster’s analysis that the number of sanctions has seen a big increase recently, to the extent that we will see the highest annual figure for total sanctions on all benefits since 2016.

Inclusion Scotland also points out that disabled claimants were between 26 and 53 per cent more likely to be sanctioned than non-disabled claimants. The rhetoric from the Tories and others that sanctions are not impacting on disabled people is blown out of the water by those statistics. Quite frankly, any politicians who are immune to the hardships that sanctions are causing need to get out more. I have seen the impact at first hand when volunteering at a food bank in my constituency. I have seen the look of despair and the empty kitchen cupboards that sanctions cause.

I pay tribute to advice agencies, council staff, food banks and the caring communities in my constituency for everything that they do to assist people who are struggling because of benefit sanctions. Out of concern about the impact of that harsh policy, the Scottish Government has amended the Scottish welfare fund guidance to allow crisis grants to be awarded. That is just another example of us having to mitigate the inhumane Westminster welfare policy. Given the likely rise in the number of sanctions, it is even more important that the Scottish Government makes sure that it is widely known that support is available.

I am in no doubt that a policy that leaves people and their families with no money or less than they need cannot have anything good in it. It will have no part to play in a compassionate Scotland that has all the welfare powers that are needed to look after our citizens and help our young people to thrive.

I apologise for not being physically in the chamber, but I am currently self-isolating. It is a privilege to lead this members’ business debate on ovarian cancer awareness month. I thank all colleagues who have decided to speak in support, and I thank the minister for what I am sure will be a welcome and thoughtful contribution.

This month marks ovarian cancer awareness month. We know that ovarian cancer is the sixth most common cancer faced by women in the United Kingdom. According to Cancer Research UK, there are about 7,400 new cases of ovarian cancer each year, which equates to approximately 20 diagnoses per day. The key symptoms of ovarian cancer include persistent bloating, feeling full quickly, loss of appetite, pelvic or abdominal pain and urinary symptoms such as needing to urinate more frequently than usual. Other symptoms include unexplained weight loss, tiredness and changes to bowel habits or symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome, especially if it starts after the age of 50. Sadly, ovarian cancer is often diagnosed too late.

I am very aware of the suffering that this horrible cancer causes. I will never forget two women whom I had the privilege to care for when I was part of the nursing team at the St Margaret of Scotland Hospice in my constituency. The women were only in their late 20s and early 30s and, sadly, they both died of ovarian cancer. It was tragic to see those young women endure the misery that the cancer causes and the impact that it had on their families.

The majority of women will be diagnosed when they notice symptoms, typically when they visit their general practitioner. Although symptoms can occur at every stage of the disease, they are non-specific and can be hard to pinpoint. A woman’s route to diagnosis is key to their survival. As with many cancers, the earlier ovarian cancer is diagnosed the better the survival rate is. Put simply, the earlier the better. The difference in survival rate between early and late diagnosis is substantial. Statistics show that about 93 per cent of women who are diagnosed with ovarian cancer at the earliest stage survive for five years or more, compared to only 13 per cent of those diagnosed at stage 4.

In Scotland and in the UK more widely, we have an exceptional national health service screening programme that successfully helps to save many people’s lives. However, the programme covers only three main types of cancers and, overall, 6 per cent of cancer diagnoses happen through that route. We need to consider what can be done to better enhance all the options and see an even better approach.

In leading the debate, I am highlighting the need for early diagnosis. I am also sharing the experience of my constituent Denise Hooper and her ideas of what can be done to improve diagnosis. On behalf of Denise, I want to raise her belief that there is scope for testing for cancer antigen 125 in the detection and screening of ovarian cancer. Denise has campaigned on that for some time and previously raised a petition in the Parliament.

Denise was back and forth to her doctor for six months with IBS symptoms and was then sent for an ultrasound and MRI scan. She was given the all-clear and advised that the mass found was likely to be a fibroid but, due to her age, she was recommended for a hysterectomy. At Denise’s pre-operative assessment, her oncologist noticed that her levels of CA-125 were high during a blood test taken prior to that and informed her that that might have been an indication of ovarian cancer. Denise had her hysterectomy and was diagnosed with stage 3 ovarian cancer.

CA-125 is a protein that is often found on the surface of ovarian cancer cells and in some normal tissues. Women with ovarian cancer often have a high level of the protein in their blood. A small sample of blood is taken from the patient’s arm and sent to a lab for a simple test to measure the level of CA-125 in the blood sample. In most healthy women, the level of CA-125 is usually about 35 units per millilitre. However, some women can have a naturally high level of CA-125 in their blood. The level of CA-125 in a person’s blood can rise for many reasons, including endometriosis, menstruation, ovarian cysts and sometimes ovarian cancer, which is one reason why it cannot accurately be used as a sole screening test for ovarian cancer. However, we want its presence to lead to better screening as a matter of course.

If the level of CA-125 in a person’s blood is 35 units or higher, their GP should arrange for them to have an ultrasound scan of their tummy and pelvis. The ultrasound scan will create pictures of their ovaries so that they can checked for anything unusual and will help their GP to gather more information. In some areas of the UK, a CA-125 blood test and ultrasound scan are ordered at the same time. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommends that women with possible symptoms of ovarian cancer be tested for CA-125 in a primary care setting, typically at their GP surgery.

Although the CA-125 test has been studied in women with secondary cancer, the test has not been fully evaluated for women who have seen their GP with symptoms that could be ovarian cancer. Cancer Research UK conducted a study that looked at 50,000 women who had seen their GP and taken the CA-125 test. Research found that 10 per cent of women with higher levels of the protein biomarker were diagnosed with ovarian cancer, making an abnormal test 12 times more predictive than previous estimates had suggested. As well as helping to diagnose ovarian cancer, CA-125 blood tests are sometimes used to monitor the treatment of ovarian cancer as well as other types of cancers such as fallopian, or to check for signs of reoccurrence.

Although the CA-125 test should be routine, it is not being suggested that it should be the be-all and end-all. Instead, Denise is asking that it be considered as part of the test in the routine screening for ovarian cancer. That would work alongside other screening methods that are often used to diagnose, such as ultrasound and transvaginal scans. It is clear that everything possible should be considered that has the potential to improve the detection of this horrible cancer.

As I said, I will never forget the misery that was inflicted on those young women whom I nursed at the end of life. We must pull out all the stops to increase awareness, have a step change in diagnosis and provide a gold standard in the necessary care of those with ovarian cancer.

I commend organisations such as Target Ovarian Cancer and many other campaigners and charities for their tireless efforts to raise awareness of ovarian cancer. I thank the other speakers for taking part in tonight’s debate. I thank my constituent Denise for sharing her story and for her bravery and determination to secure improvements in the efforts to diagnose as early as possible and therefore save lives.

A constituent of mine is a victim of historical forced adoption and is concerned about confidentially of victims who are responding to the Scottish Government consultation. She explains that filling in the responses is quite difficult for victims, as it brings up a lot of emotion and has a big impact on people filling it in. That could have a significant impact on the responses given and the effectiveness of the consultation.

What assurances can the First Minister give my constituent and all victims of forced adoption that any information that they give will be treated confidentially and that they will not be identifiable from their responses?

I will if it is brief and I will get the time back.

I thank the cabinet secretary for her statement and the launch of the next phase of our tackling child poverty delivery plan. It is absolutely correct that eradicating child poverty should be a national mission of our Government. The way in which we want to see our children treated will define us as a country.

The measures contained in the plan are very welcome. Our approach rightly shows that, to end child poverty, we need a multi-agency approach, with all parts of society signing up to that national mission. There can be no more important issue for the Parliament to debate than the welfare of our nation’s children. We must be resolute in our determination to act to remove all barriers and see our young people thrive.

There is much to be done and we should work collectively and take an honest and realistic approach when considering how to get to our stated destination. That honesty should call out all the obstacles and avoid kite-flying and political opportunism. If we are all signed up to the national endeavour, we need cross-party consensus on how to deliver on that mission. In that spirit, we must recognise what has been achieved already. We also need to recognise that the challenge is made even greater by the cost of living crisis.

Our Government and this Parliament must do everything within the powers that we have to eradicate child poverty, and we have seen some very welcome progress in that regard. When other political parties were calling for a Scottish child payment of £5, the Scottish Government instead introduced a payment of £10. Recognising the scale of the challenge, we accelerated our plans to increase the payment to £20 per week. It will now be £25, which is five times more than the amount that other parties suggested.

I thank the member for her intervention, but I will not take any lessons from a representative of a party that backed the cap on welfare spending.

The Child Poverty Action Group said that the Scottish child payment

“is a real lifeline for families across Scotland who are facing a perfect storm of financial insecurity as the UK cut to universal credit bites, energy prices soar and the wider costs of living rise.”

I welcome the fact that almost £6 billion has been invested to support low-income households across Scotland over the past three years. I also welcome the announcement that, subject to parliamentary approval, eight of our Scottish social security benefits will be increased by 6 per cent from 1 April, which is very significant. That contrasts with a 3.1 per cent increase for Department for Work and Pensions benefits. In the context of child poverty, it is deeply concerning that we cannot apply the 6 per cent increase to disability benefits, when we know that disability is a major driver of poverty. When I questioned the Minister for Social Security and Local Government at last week’s meeting of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee, I warmly welcomed his call for the Westminster Government to do the right thing and mirror our higher uprating.

Scotland remains the only part of the UK to have five family benefits, including the Scottish child payment, that were designed to tackle child poverty head on. The Scottish child payment, combined with the three best start grants and best start foods, means that low-income families can receive more than £10,000 of financial support by the time their first child turns six and more than £9,700 for each subsequent child. That is £8,200 more than the support that is available in England and Wales—and for every eligible child; there is no two-child policy here, with its abhorrent rape clause.

I have long campaigned against the benefit cap and I welcome the cabinet secretary’s plan for mitigation. In an honest better together world, we need to compare our approach with that of the Westminster Government. The Office for Budget Responsibility, which was set up by the Tories, has stated that the current standard of living crisis is the biggest fall in living standards since records began.

The statement made by the chancellor yesterday was a chance to provide necessary support; it was also a chance for him to join us in making the eradication of child poverty a national mission. Instead, he ignored the calls to reinstate the £20 uplift to universal credit even though its removal was estimated to be responsible for placing 20,000 children in poverty and described as the biggest cut to benefits since the welfare state was established.

The chancellor has refused to mirror our uprating level of 6 per cent for DWP benefits, even for child benefit, at a time when we are increasing the Scottish child payment; he has maintained the five-week waiting time for universal credit and the two-child policy with its abhorrent rape clause—which is absolutely disgusting; and there has been no uprating to the benefit cap, which denies families with children the basic level of subsistence that they should get in a safety-net social security system. The Resolution Foundation has pointed out that £2 in every £3 of new support goes to the top half.

Let us get real and not deny that UK policies are holding us back. The misery that those policies are inflicting is real and they are a significant barrier to eradicating child poverty. They cause misery and hardship and hold our communities back.

I pause to praise the outstanding work of advice agencies, food banks, council staff, health and social care partnership staff, housing associations and all the volunteers and caring communities in my constituency. They are there, day in and day out, supporting those in need. They are, quite simply, life savers.

Let us get behind the delivery plan and call for the powers—the full levers—that will allow us to eradicate child poverty, as it is clear that the Westminster Government does not have the same ambition to end that misery. Let that not get in the way of what we need to do to help our nation’s children thrive.

Yes. In your written submission, you said that, in the documents, the connection of social security to the wider economy and public spending is missed. You gave the example that investment in social security has the potential to reduce NHS and social care spend, so I wanted you to expand on that.

Is there any good practice of assessing that link in other parts of the world?

Good morning, and happy St Patrick’s day. I have a question on the connection between the economy and other budgets. You touched on that in answer to my colleague, Pam Duncan-Glancy, but it would be good to hear more. Is anything happening at a UK level to embed that link? Are you aware of good practice or experience of that sort of approach in any other countries? That question goes to Emma Congreve, and then David Phillips could add to that.

Good morning, minister. From your letter to the Presiding Officer, we are aware that, in the light of the cost of living crisis, you plan to introduce emergency legislation that will increase the uplift in Scottish benefits to 6 per cent. That is really welcome, as it will help some people to cope with the impact that the crisis is having on household incomes.

You set out that that is not possible for disability benefit because of the current Westminster welfare uprating policy. However, the Resolution Foundation has asked the UK Government to uprate higher for as many benefits as is administratively possible but at least universal credit and tax credits, which could include DWP disability benefits. That would be an obvious way to assist people with the cost of living crisis. I have not seen any remote possibility that the UK Government will do that. Is that also your understanding of its position?