Chamber and committees

To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the recently published report by Humanist Society Scotland, “Preaching is not Teaching”, regarding concerns that pupils in non-denominational schools may feel compelled to take part in religious worship activities against their own wishes. (S6O-04960)

I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests as a member of the Humanist Society Scotland.

Given that more than 70 per cent of Scottish pupils now identify as non-religious or as having non-Christian beliefs, I am deeply concerned that non-denominational schools are still able to deliver an exclusively Christian programme of religious observance. In the report, one parent explained that their child was pressured to pray out loud and reprimanded for choosing to stay quiet, leaving her distressed and ashamed. Does the cabinet secretary agree that that represents a clear failure to respect a child’s right to their own beliefs—a fundamental human right that is protected under the UNCRC—and that pupils should be given the ability to independently opt out of religious observance?

What I am hearing from you both—it is what we have heard from the rest of the witnesses, too, I think—is that there is an element of failure demand driving up ill health or exacerbating health conditions that then tip into worsening health conditions, which perhaps leads people to apply for benefits that they might not have applied for before. However, underpinning that, there is the cost of living, which also drives applications from people who perhaps would not have applied in the past. Is that a correct summation?

Earlier, we spoke a little bit about the proposed PIP reforms that were shelved. Do the witnesses have any views on the likelihood of significant eligibility changes to PIP happening in the near future? If such decisions are made, how can the Scottish Government plan for their financial impact?

Look at the big issue of winter heating allowance changes and the guddle that was the fallout; this issue is even more complicated given the passporting and the intertwined nature of that. From this committee’s perspective, how we help scrutinise the Scottish Government’s response to such changes, should they come down the line, is a huge issue.

I am going to discuss the increased disability benefits case load. It has already been touched on quite a bit so, in the interests of brevity, we will try to just tease out some more responses to it.

If you look at the narrative out there, the increase can be seen in some quarters as a terrible thing, and in other quarters as the best thing. It is our duty to look underneath the screaming headlines that we sometimes see in newspapers, which I think lead to a toxic discussion about it and, perhaps, knee-jerk proposed reforms.

Has any real research been undertaken to understand what is driving the increase in people applying for and being successful in receiving disability benefits right across the UK? We are seeing it in every place and we have touched on some of the reasons, but if anybody could add any more detail, it would be really helpful.

I have heard a young person who is in receipt of a high-level child disability payment question their own eligibility because of the narrative that is out there. That young person will not be an isolated case, and there is a broader conversation to be had about the toxic narrative.

To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to support small-scale food producers in rural communities, in light of its commitments under the national good food nation plan. (S6O-04902)

The cabinet secretary will know that two fantastic local producers in my constituency, at Mossgiel farm and Corrie Mains farm, have lost their school contracts with East Ayrshire Council. Those businesses have long supported sustainable food, local jobs and the good food nation vision, and have helped East Ayrshire to achieve gold status under the Soil Association’s good food for life scheme. The decision is a real setback, and it raises serious questions about the procurement rules that councils must follow. Does the cabinet secretary agree that it is time to review the frameworks to ensure that they do not end up working against the very goals that we are trying to achieve collectively?

I am finding the conversation fascinating. Paul Sweeney’s questions sparked off a thought in my head. Previously, I was community wellbeing spokesperson for the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. When we looked at how to end homelessness, we decided to approach it through rapid rehousing transition plans, which are similar to the things that Paul Sweeney was just speaking about.

I was going to ask about how we ensure that the strategy applies to all the levels where decisions need to be made, but you answered that when Paul Sweeney asked about who was responsible for that. My argument to health and social care partnerships was that they would need to release some of their funding, which, traditionally, did not include housing. My argument was that the strategy reads across everything.

How do we actually make sure that that happens? If every department is doing its own programme budgeting and trying to figure out the marginal analysis of that, how are those who are debating acute and preventative spend making sure that the read-across is there? I know that that is a big question, but I think that it is important.