Chamber and committees

The Scottish Refugee Council has referred to the Nationality and Borders Bill as the “anti-refugee bill” and argues that it is the biggest threat to refugees’ rights in decades. Does the panel share that view? What are the biggest concerns about the impact that it will have on migrants, refugees and asylum seekers? I will throw that out to the whole panel and anyone who wants to can answer it.

Siobhán Mullally, the United Nations special rapporteur, said that

“The bill fails to acknowledge the Government’s obligation to ensure protection for migrant and asylum-seeking children, and greatly increases risks of statelessness, in violation of international law.”

COSLA suggests that the bill might affect devolved safeguarding and protection duties. Andrew Morrison, can you explain further?

Most of my questions on this theme have been covered. You highlighted the problems with accessing data, but do you have any indication of the level of unmet need? I will pose that to Pat Togher and Andrew Morrison and anybody else who wants to come in.

That is absolutely fine. You have highlighted that some funding has been available in Scotland to assist. Within the devolved powers that we have, what other ways are there to provide financial support to people with no recourse to public funds?

Do you have any indication of the level of unmet need? I know that you have already highlighted the problems with accessing data.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate and thank Jackie Baillie for securing it. Unfortunately, all members know someone who will be affected by cancer in some form, whether through a personal diagnosis or that of a partner, family member or friend.

According to NHS Research Scotland, every year, about 30,000 people in Scotland are told that they have cancer. Trends predict that that number is likely to rise to almost 40,000 by 2027. The impact of a cancer diagnosis is devastating for many people. It is vital that we get services back on track and maximise the support that is on offer to people with cancer and their families. We must then use that opportunity as a platform to transform the services that are on offer so that we improve them beyond the previous levels of our cancer plan.

I praise the excellent work of Macmillan Cancer Support and thank it for the briefing that it provided for the debate. I welcome what Macmillan is doing with the Scottish Government transforming cancer care partnership. That partnership will ensure that, by 2023, Scotland will be the first country in the UK in which every cancer patient has access to a key support worker and gets dedicated financial, practical and emotional support.

From my previous job as part of the nursing team at the St Margaret of Scotland Hospice in my constituency, I know about the full impact that cancer has on the physical, mental and financial welfare of people with a diagnosis. As inequality is a driver, the financial impact of cancer must not be ignored. Macmillan advises that 87 per cent of people with cancer in Scotland experience some kind of financial impact from their diagnosis. Therefore, a holistic support package is essential if we are to provide the best help at the time of greatest need.

I highlight the work of the Beatson Cancer Charity, which supports people affected by cancer every step of the way. It does brilliant work at the Beatson west of Scotland cancer centre and in the hearts of our communities.

In the past 20 years, the majority of cancers have shown improvements in survival rates five years post diagnosis. Cancer that is diagnosed at an early stage is more likely to be treated successfully. For instance, almost all women diagnosed with breast cancer at the early stage survive their disease for at least five years.

With the pause of screening appointments due to Covid, it has become even more imperative that the most vulnerable receive invitations as soon as possible. We must also fully understand why many people do not attend their appointments. It is not enough simply to urge people to attend appointments; we need to understand any unexpected barriers or misinformation that needs to be addressed.

In a recent debate to raise awareness of pancreatic cancer, I shared the experience of a constituent who, sadly, did not get an early enough diagnosis of their cancer. Their heart-breaking experience highlighted the need for early diagnosis and to have access to effective and compassionate care where it is needed most.

For world cancer day, let us unite around a cancer plan that gets beyond Covid, does more than pick up from where we left off, lets us reduce the barriers that are fuelled by poverty and inequality, and helps us to save lives.

I will be quick.

Minister, you have set out clear timescales for the transfer of PIP to ADP. The history of DWP transfers suggests that such timescales are frequently missed. For example, that was the case with the transfers of DLA to PIP and of legacy benefits to universal credit. How confident are you that the timescales that you have set out will be met?

Yes, I have two further questions, convener.

Minister, you are clear, and so is SCOSS, that safe and secure transfer must be the priority before any major change to the approach is considered and that any further change will be guided by the independent review. You also indicated that the first stage of the review will focus on mobility criteria. What is the rationale for that and can you say more about the wider remit of the review?

I do not agree with Jeremy Balfour’s comments. The regulations are the key point in the biggest transfer of social security powers in our nation’s history. They are key to giving disabled people the dignity and respect that they are denied by the Westminster system.

The approach set out makes a safe and secure transfer a priority, which is how it should be, and that is what the consultation has asked for. It allows us to make changes and take a more compassionate, generous approach to claimants with terminal illness through the short-term assistance that is not provided in any other part of the UK. It recognises the financial hardship that is experienced in real life by many of our constituents, giving them more time to challenge decisions, assistance to get the best possible information to aid the decisions, and an ending of the use of the private sector assessments that cause great misery to disabled people claiming what they are due.

Those are just a few examples of what we have achieved in a short time and an independent review will help to guide us to further important change. We should therefore just agree the regulations because they take a massive step towards providing a social security system that has been long overdue.

Thank you, convener, and congratulations on your appointment.

Good morning, minister. Is it the case that if the Westminster Government got rid of the 20m rule for PIP, that would create the space for a similar change to take place in Scotland for ADP?