Chamber and committees

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

As I was saying, trans people continue to suffer poorer outcomes relative to outcomes among the wider population, and that needs to change. Our “Evidence Review: Non-Binary People’s Experiences in Scotland” highlighted that existing research suggests that non-binary and trans people face discrimination in multiple sectors of society—

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I will continue. The Scottish Government is committed to increasing equality and improving the lives of trans people in Scotland. Trans people continue to suffer poorer outcomes relative to outcomes among the wider population—

Much has been said in the debate about protection of women. I reiterate the actions that we are taking to support and empower women in Scotland. Gender equality is at the heart of the Scottish Government’s vision for a fairer Scotland.

Through collaborative work on the Period Products (Free Provision) (Scotland) Act 2021, access to free period products is enshrined in law for anyone who needs them, which has built on Scotland’s world-leading work in that area.

Violence against women is a fundamental violation of human rights, which is why we are implementing the equally safe strategy to prevent and eradicate all forms of violence against women and girls and to tackle the underlying attitudes that perpetuate it.

—such as education, health, communities, work, benefits and issues around homelessness.

Trans and non-binary people are a small marginalised group, at 0.44 per cent of Scotland’s population—

—and race equality organisations that we fund via the equality and human rights fund.

I conclude by restating our position—

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, for giving me the time back for Mr Kerr’s lengthy intervention.

I do not accept that this Government does not support people getting into work. We have a raft of investments in ways to do that.

This debate is uncomfortable both for the Tories and for Labour because their approach to welfare benefits is based on punishment and stigma, and this Government rejects that approach whole-heartedly.

Despite the fixed budgets and limited powers of devolution, we have transformed social security provision in Scotland and we are committed to ensuring that finances remain on a sustainable trajectory. We will publish our next medium-term financial strategy later this year, alongside a fiscal sustainability delivery plan.

In conclusion, as I and many members in the chamber have highlighted, the recent statements by UK Government ministers on welfare reform and benefit cuts show no regard for the reality of people’s lives. I will close the debate with a clear and urgent message to the UK Government: remember your pledge of no austerity; do not punish those who most need our help; recognise the hardships that mean that people may require help from the benefits system; and join us, in the Scottish Government, in working to banish stigma from social security rather than amplifying it through aggressive soundbites and rhetoric.

I thank Marie McNair for bringing this debate to the chamber. I have listened carefully to the comments that have been made and I hope to respond to some of the points that have been raised.

Any one of us might find ourselves at any time in our lives unable to get paid work due to sickness or disability or because we are caring for a loved one. If that happens, social security should provide us with a safety net. It should provide protection from poverty and financial insecurity no matter what life has thrown at us. That is what social security should be.

However, what we are seeing from the current UK Government, ahead of the publication of its green paper later this month, raises significant concerns for the future of that social security safety net. When the previous UK Government initially set out proposals for changes to the work capability assessment, the Scottish Government, along with poverty campaigners and disabled people’s organisations, roundly condemned the targeting of vital benefits that support disabled people and those with long-term health conditions. It is deeply disappointing that the current UK Government is continuing with those plans.

With reference to Paul O’Kane’s intervention, I know that this is a very uncomfortable space for Labour. Although the reforms originated with the previous Conservative Government, Labour has defended them. In fact, at the judicial review it was found that the consultation on the reforms was based on the need to save money as opposed to getting people back into jobs. The UK Government is now reconsulting, and we will see the results of that reconsultation in the green paper that is meant to be forthcoming.

As Marie McNair points out in her motion, the UK Government’s language when discussing disabled people and people with long-term health conditions is deeply concerning, as it seeks to further stigmatise and blame the sick and disabled for accessing social security benefits that they are legally entitled to and on which they rely.

In Scotland, we know that there is a different way to deliver social security. As a devolved nation, we are able to do that, as Maggie Chapman pointed out. The Scottish Parliament unanimously created the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018, which enshrines the principles of dignity, fairness and respect, reducing poverty, and advancing equality and non-discrimination at the heart of a radically different social security system. As Stuart McMillan so eloquently pointed out, we must retain compassion at the heart of any social security system, and those are the principles that guide this Government’s social security decision making.

While the UK Government is focused on reducing the amount of money that is spent on supporting the disabled and others who need help, the Scottish Government believes that social security is an essential collective investment in Scotland’s people, its communities and its future. It is an investment because, as we all know, inequality is bad for our health, our communities and our economy.

In the recently passed budget, the Scottish Government made a conscious decision to invest in social security for the people of Scotland by investing around £6.9 billion in benefits and payments for 2025-26. That investment will support approximately 2 million people and amounts to around £1.3 billion more than the funding for social security that was received from the UK Government.

In Scotland, we are taking a positive and compassionate approach to delivering the adult disability payment. That approach is ensuring that more disabled people get the support to which they are entitled while making sure that accessing that support is as straightforward as possible. In 2025-26, we will invest around £3.6 billion in the adult disability payment, which is £314 million more than we are forecast to receive from the UK Government through the social security block grant adjustment.

We are also using our limited budget to mitigate some of the UK Government’s most damaging policies. Over the past 14 years, we have spent around £1.2 billion on mitigating the effects of policies such as the bedroom tax and the benefit cap, including almost £154 million in 2024-25. Furthermore, from 2026, we will mitigate the effects of the pernicious two-child cap, thereby helping to keep thousands of children out of poverty and reducing the depth of poverty that many more face.

Thank you for that, Maggie. You will be well aware of my years in education. I still feel very passionate about children in particular, but I include neurodivergent adults, autistic adults and dyslexic adults as well.

What you describe is heartbreaking, and we should absolutely be doing better. I would argue that we are, and that those issues are being taken very seriously.

I outlined to the committee the approach of getting portfolios to speak to each other. In the particular case that you raise, there are clear correlations with other areas. Cross-working needs to happen between, for example, the health budget, which is substantial, and education. Those are just two areas—there will be others. Housing will come into it, as will social care.

The challenge for all of us, as elected members with portfolio responsibilities, is that we have a duty not only to take care of our own patch but to recognise—as you alluded to in your question—that a decision in one portfolio area that is taken with the best of intentions could have an unintended consequence, and deprive somebody of a service, in another area. In addition, there are areas in which duplication can happen.

I have highlighted some of the work that I am doing—for instance, I met with representatives of the Scottish councils’ equality network. For a minister to meet with those folk, who are working incredibly hard at local authority level, has never been done before; I brought together all 32 local authorities to do that. That should give you an indication that I am trying to get to the heart of our public services—in that case, our local authorities, which are direct providers of many of the services to the folks you mention.

The Scottish Government is taking those steps to build that competence and capability across the public sector. In addition, the online equality and human rights mainstreaming strategy toolkit will be published later this year. That will provide resources for officials across the public sector to increase their competence in equality, inclusion and human rights. Those resources will include guidance, checklists, training materials and best practice examples. The content is being developed by working groups, with representatives from key stakeholders, and the aim is to support policy officials by setting out pragmatic steps that they can take to support their mainstreaming journey.

We are also moving forward in building our capacity in inclusive communications, and we are committed to embedding that across our public services. I know that I am due another visit to the committee with regard to our public sector equality duty, so we will be able to go into that in further detail.

I hope that that gives you an indication that there is visible leadership in this area, not only in ensuring that we have different ways of working but in empowering officials. Those officials may be working in local authorities, as in the example that I gave, but the approach applies equally to those in the third sector; I mentioned my extensive meeting with duty bearers, for instance. We need to provide people with the support that they need to do that work. We cannot simply say, “This is what I expect”, because people will come back and say, “Well, how am I meant to do that? Where are the resources, and where is the support?” I think that I have given a reasonable account of how we are doing that.