Chamber and committees

I think, however, that in the evidence session the other week Rights Advice Scotland told us that Social Security Scotland is not accepting the forms that advisers are putting in—it has to be a specific form. It would be great if you could take that issue back, so that we could get some resolution.

To ask the Scottish Government what it is doing to support childcare groups that provide after-school care and care outwith school term times. (S6O-03318)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not connect, but I would have voted no.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Just before I spoke in the debate, I failed to mention that I am a member of the trade union Unison. I would be grateful if the Official Report could be amended to reflect that.

In the interests of time, I do not plan to take any interventions. I have a lot to say.

I speak as a member of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee, in line with our report on the bill. I thank the committee clerks for their assistance with the production of our report. The evidence that we received from many experts, including trade unions, was invaluable in getting an illustration of how the current scheme has excluded so many and ignored the experiences of people who have been injured in the workplace, especially women. It is astonishing that that has been allowed to go on for so long.

I thank Mark Griffin for introducing the bill. I understand that his intentions are genuine and that he has done a lot of work on the bill. The effort that he has put in and the evidence that he has gathered have shone a considerable light on the significant failings of the UK-wide industrial injuries disablement scheme. It is a scheme that, despite its antiquity, has been left largely unreformed. It has been unresponsive and lacking in acknowledgement of the realities and experience of the emerging working environment over many years.

We now know that the scheme’s warehouse is full of paper files. That is no way to run a modern social security system that has dignity, fairness and justice at its heart. I am therefore supportive of any change that takes us on the right path to justice for the many who have been denied access to support. That is how I approached our evidence sessions on the bill.

As the MSP whose constituency covers Clydebank, an area plagued by the tragic legacy of asbestos-related health conditions, and as someone who has spent considerable time working with the Clydebank Asbestos Group, I have a particular interest in industrial injuries benefits and the need to ensure that the new benefit meets the values of fairness, dignity and respect. Every worker deserves to return home from work free of harm or injury. Speaking from the Clydebank perspective, I can say that that has unfortunately not been the case for many, as the historical use of asbestos in shipbuilding and in the built environment has led to asbestos-related health conditions, such as mesothelioma. I look forward to the introduction of the Scottish Government’s replacement benefit, employment injury assistance, to be administered by Social Security Scotland on our behalf.

The committee kept an open mind about the bill. It was difficult to weigh all the arguments that were presented to us. One main concern about the bill is whether the timing is appropriate, given the approach that the Scottish Government is currently taking to the delivery of new benefits.

Importantly, the Scottish Government needs to ensure the safe and secure transfer of benefits. That involves the use of a DWP agency agreement, which enables the DWP to continue to deliver the benefit in Scotland. As the Scottish Government pointed out, even once it introduces the Scottish version of a benefit, it does so with minimal change until the transfer of a case is complete, because the Scottish Government does not want to introduce inequality to the people who are transferred.

There are concerns, given the limited research budget, about whether there is sufficient expertise to sustain a statutory advisory council, because we heard that recruitment is an issue for the UK Industrial Injuries Advisory Council and the Scottish Commission on Social Security.

When recommending whether to establish a new statutory body, with all the costs that have been discussed, the committee has to be sure that the body can meet its aims. It is clear to me and members of the committee that major reform of the industrial injuries benefit is needed, but we are not convinced that the bill would secure that, because the scope to deliver the scale of the change that is required is years away. Although the committee fully considered the evidence and arguments for and against, the timing is, unfortunately, a major concern. At this point, the timing is wrong, so I cannot support the bill, because there is doubt that it will achieve its aims, particularly in times of fiscal constraint.

The evidence emphasises the need for expertise in guiding the way forward, and I welcome the commitment from the cabinet secretary that a stakeholder group will be set up. It is clear that expertise has not been listened to for so long. In summing up, will the cabinet secretary guarantee that groups such as Clydebank Asbestos Group will be included in the stakeholder group? The expertise and knowledge of such experienced people has long been ignored, and I am sure that that is part of the reason why we are inheriting this unjust and neglectful policy from Westminster.

On balance, the committee is not able to support the general principles of the bill. However, I note that the bill has helped to fully expose the lack of interest that the Westminster Parliament has shown in the issue. The fact that the legislation has been in place since 1948 yet remains mostly unreformed is a significant injustice. The UK Parliament has been asleep at the wheel, at best, and a denier of support to many people who, at the end of the day, were just doing their job. Workers need a safer environment and compensation and support when needed. How can the issue have been ignored for so long by Westminster Governments of all persuasions? However, the committee recommends to the Parliament that the general principles of the bill cannot be agreed to as it stands.

I have been made aware that funding provisions for some out-of-school care groups in my constituency have not been replicated this year. We know how important parental employment is in tackling child poverty, but lack of childcare can be a barrier to full employment. Will the minister advise what funding options may be available to out-of-school care groups to allow them to continue offering those services to support parents staying within the workplace?

I thank my colleague Ivan McKee for bringing the debate to the chamber. I also thank the Scotch Whisky Association and the whisky companies in my constituency for the helpful briefings that they provided ahead of tonight’s debate.

Scotch whisky is more than just a drink; it is a manifestation of Scotland’s rich cultural heritage and commitment to quality production. It is a symbol of national pride and delivers for our national and local economies. In 2022, the whisky industry in Scotland generated £7.1 billion in GVA and supported 66,000 jobs, and since 2018 it has invested more than £2 billion. That massive investment in our national economy should rightly be celebrated.

I am proud to represent a constituency that holds the significant Auchintoshan distillery, which is just off the A82 in Clydebank and literally five minutes away from my front door, and the Chivas Brothers warehouse in Dalmuir. I had the opportunity to visit that spirit processing and maturation site, which contains filling, disgorging and blending facilities. It has 56 employees and a combined 700 years of experience.

Legal whisky making started on the banks of the Clyde in 1817, when the Duntocher distillery was built by John Bulloch. His grandson co-founded one of the 19th century’s most famous blending and broking firms, Bulloch Lade. It was then bought in 1834 by John Hart and Alexander Filshie, who changed its name to Auchentoshan. The Filshies sold up in 1875 to a local grain merchant, and again, like so many stills, Auchie spent almost a century being passed from one owner to another. The distillery was sold to Stanley P Morrison in 1984, before being acquired by Suntory in 1994, beginning a successful era in which the whisky won many awards. The new visitor centre was built in 2004, and Auchentoshan remains a very popular Scotch whisky tourist destination.

Today, Auchentoshan is the only single malt Scotch whisky that is triple distilled and, unusually, all its production is for single malt rather than going to make blended Scotch whisky. Auchentoshan has a large market in the United Kingdom and the US but, interestingly, its popularity is also fast growing in Taiwan and Singapore.

Our whisky distilleries are so much more than just whisky producers. Auchentoshan, for example, does a lot of work in my community, which includes providing on-going support for Old Kilpatrick Food Parcels by donating food and supplies—but not whisky, I think—to help that organisation’s efforts to support those in need. Auchentoshan also supports other charities in my constituency such as Clyde Shopmobility and Golden Friendships, to name just a few.

As times change, it is important that our whisky industry moves with us. Sustainable and ethical production is more important than ever, and several distilleries are on their way to achieving greater decarbonisation. Although it is still subject to planning consent, the Auchentoshan HyClyde project, run by Marubeni Europower, would use proven technology to deliver green hydrogen to power the whole distilleryI It is expected that the project would create up to 130 jobs in construction, in addition to another four to five jobs once it is in operation.

Of course, while we champion our whisky industries, we must do much to acknowledge the importance of responsible drinking. I was glad to see, therefore, that in September 2023 the Scottish Government and the Scotch whisky industry agreed to work together to promote the made to be measured campaign as part of the Government’s wider efforts to reduce alcohol misuse in Scotland. Likewise, the whisky industries in my constituency, such as Auchentoshan, support the campaign. Auchentoshan’s owner is Suntory, which is a founding member of the International Alliance for Responsible Drinking.

Let us all, therefore, raise a glass to our excellent Scotch whisky industry and the generations of distillers who have dedicated their lives to perfecting the craft. I thank Ivan McKee once again for securing the debate, which has been very worth while.

Good morning, panel. Mr Rogerson, do you think that the figure for estimated recoverable payments of up to £5.5 million per year by 2028-29 is reasonable?

Mr Gass, do you want to add to that?

Yes—sorry.