Chamber and committees

Thank you, Deputy First Minister.

Can you outline which provisions have been included in the bill that were not contained in the temporary emergency legislation and explain why they have been included?

On the issue of proportionate measures, can the cabinet secretary explain the meaning of the phrase “proportionate response”? Who makes those decisions, and what are the challenges of doing so?

Finally, do you believe that a wider review should be undertaken to ensure that the Public Health etc (Scotland) Act 2008 remains fit for purpose?

There is a Henry VIII provision in section 94 of the Public Health etc (Scotland) Act 2008, which relates to international travel restrictions. Has that ever been used?

I have been contacted by many constituents who are looking to host refugees fleeing Ukraine. How is the Scottish Government co-ordinating with local authorities to ensure that refugees and hosts are given proper support?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Time is of the essence, as energy prices are going up tomorrow, and people are trying to submit their meter readings to their companies. However, all the energy companies’ websites have crashed today and are currently down. Can the Scottish Government intervene to ask them to extend the process for a few days?

I congratulate Kaukab Stewart on securing the debate and welcome the opportunity to speak in it.

As we have heard, a recent paper by University of Glasgow researchers notes that the cruel and heartless benefit sanctions imposed by the UK Government have a significant impact internationally on the labour market and have negative widespread social effects. What is more, they do the exact opposite of what they are intended to do, in that they result in unemployment and economic inactivity as people are forced into low-quality jobs that they are not matched to.

I want to highlight the work of Dr David Webster of the University of Glasgow, whose research on the labour market contributes to the work of the Child Poverty Action Group. His most recent publication in February states that

“the rapid rise in UC sanctions which was noted in ... November 2021 ... has continued.”

Last month, in the unelected House of Lords, the junior DWP minister Baroness Stedman-Scott was adamant when she said:

“we are not having tougher sanctions.” —[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 February 2022; Vol 818, c 1011.]

However, that is simply not true. In November, there were nearly 50,000 claimants serving a universal credit sanction, well above the pre-pandemic peak of 36,780—and, yes, I did say “pre-pandemic peak”.

As we look forward from Covid and aim to build a fairer society for everyone, the Conservative Government is increasing cruel and ineffective sanctions—and we should be in no doubt that they do not work. The UK Government has announced the new way to work initiative, which has the noble ambition of getting half a million people into work by June. How is it going to do that? It will use the threat of sanctions to force claimants to look for work more quickly outside their chosen sectors and to widen their search into fields where they have no experience after just four weeks. According to Dr Webster,

“It is bound to increase the number of sanctions”

handed out by the DWP and will result in

“worse matches between people and jobs, damaging earnings, morale and productivity”.

That is exactly what we do not need right now. We often talk about evidence-based approaches to policy—well, there is the evidence.

Of course, the UK Government is not interested in the evidence. In his research, Dr Webster found that

“Under Secretary of State Thérèse Coffey, the DWP appears to have adopted a comprehensive policy of blocking information on the effects of benefit sanctions.”

That raises the question: what do they have to hide? Dr Webster is not the only one to think that. The chair of the House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee, Stephen Timms MP, has said:

“This emerging pattern of obstruction suggests that a culture of secrecy is entrenched in DWP.”

The UK Government’s ignorance results in people having to make choices between heating their homes and feeding their children. That, unfortunately, is Great Britain in 2022. It is the real experience of people who are being hit hard by the cost of living crisis, which the Conservatives have no intention of doing anything meaningful about.

That ignorance is forcing people into the arms of food banks in my constituency. The volunteers at food banks do a fantastic job, but they should not be needed in 21st century Britain—although, of course, Jacob Rees-Mogg thinks that food banks are “rather uplifting”. Kind, compassionate and caring conservatism that is not.

Although I am glad that we are getting a chance to debate the matter, members should be under no illusion: Boris Johnson does not care what we have to say. He does not even care what his own MSPs have to say. What is the way out of this mess for the people of Scotland? I know what it is. It is most certainly not Boris’s benefit-sanction Britain. It is that Scotland becomes an independent country with full powers showing more compassion to people who need it.

I think that Renfrewshire has been very proactive on this, and perhaps other local authorities can learn lessons from it.

As members have no more questions, I thank the witnesses for their evidence and their time this morning. If you want to provide the committee with any further evidence, you can do so in writing. The clerks will be happy to liaise with you on that.

At the committee’s next meeting, on 31 March, we will conclude our evidence taking on the Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Bill at stage 1 with the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Covid Recovery. We will also consider the outcome of the next ministerial statement on Covid-19.

That concludes the public part of this morning’s meeting. We now move in private for the next agenda item.

Good morning, and welcome to the 10th meeting in 2022 of the COVID-19 Recovery Committee.

As this week marks the two-year anniversary of the first Covid-19 lockdown, I will take a moment to acknowledge those who have sadly lost a loved one to Covid-19 and to reflect on the many challenges that individuals and wider society have faced over the past two years in dealing with the pandemic.

Although we banged our pots and clapped on our doorsteps in appreciation of the national health service, it is important to acknowledge that, this week, our NHS has never been under so much pressure. Yesterday, there were more than 2,257 people with Covid in hospital and more than 5,000 NHS staff absences. We all appreciate how difficult that situation is for our NHS and, on behalf of the committee, I offer our heartfelt thanks for the health service’s on-going work in such challenging circumstances.

This morning, the committee will continue to take evidence on the Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Bill at stage 1. I welcome to the meeting Adam Stachura, head of policy and communications at Age Scotland; Douglas Hendry, executive director at Argyll and Bute Council; Fiona Blair, president of the Association of Registrars of Scotland; Mairi Millar, head of licensing and democratic services at Glasgow City Council; and David McNeill, director of development at the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations. Thank you for giving us your time this morning.

The focus of today’s meeting is the remote delivery of public services, where that is enabled under part 3 of the bill. Each member of the committee will have approximately 12 minutes to ask questions of the panel. We should be okay for time this morning, but I apologise in advance if, in the interests of keeping us to time, I have to interrupt members or witnesses.

I will start the questioning by asking about digital exclusion. The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations has noted that

“1.5 million more people have started using the internet in the UK since 2020”.

A recent Scottish household survey report has shown that, at the moment, 93 per cent of households have access to the internet and 92 per cent of adults use it. However, deprivation is a significant factor, with only 87 per cent of households in our most deprived areas having access to the internet.

I am concerned about how the cost of living crisis will hit households. With extra costs averaging at about £3,000 a year, people will start to decide to spend their money on, say, heating and food instead and, as a result, more people might become digitally excluded. What other risks might arise with the move to the digital delivery of public services? That question is for Adam Stachura, first of all.