Chamber and committees

We move to Fulton MacGregor.

I have some questions. In previous years, and this year, stakeholders have told the committee about a lack of connection between policy and budget documents and have voiced concerns about the lack of meaningful detail in the equality and fairer Scotland budget statement. The Scottish Government’s response to recommendations from the equality and human rights budget advisory group includes a commitment to better align the programme for government and the budget process.

In that context, minister, can you explain how the committee’s previous concerns about a lack of clarity between documents will be addressed in the coming budget round and how the equalities assessment process will influence that? That concern comes not only from the committee but from the citizens panel, whose members we spoke to earlier, because that lack of connection has been raised at community level. The average citizen does not always see the connection between the decisions that are made and the direct impact that those have on their lives and communities. How will you address that?

I want to get a wee bit of further reassurance about the Scottish Government’s commitment to implementing the equality and human rights budget advisory group’s recommendations—in the interest of inclusivity, I do not use just initials, so that we all know what it is.

Will the minister explain the funding implications of implementing the recommendations? Are they significant or process-driven changes that can be met within existing budgets?

I have a wee follow-up question, which you might not be able to answer today. Retrospective analysis came up in our discussions with the citizens panel. Citizens asked what work is done, after budgets are set and policy is followed, to analyse the impact and see whether the money reached the right people. I am fully prepared for the fact that you might not have answers today, but it would be good to hear what work the Government does on impact analysis.

I am grateful to have the opportunity to make this announcement on behalf of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee. Today the committee published a report on its inquiry into the human rights of asylum seekers in Scotland.

The committee began taking oral evidence on 25 April, at my first meeting as its convener, and we continued throughout May and June.

Paragraphs 65 to 71 of our report set out the witnesses from whom the committee heard. We are extremely grateful to all those who contributed to the inquiry, but I particularly want to thank the asylum seekers and refugees who spoke directly to us in our engagement sessions. It was essential to me that we heard about their lived experience, which was often traumatic, so that the committee clearly understood the significant challenges that they face. I encourage members to read the notes from our engagement sessions, which are published on the committee’s web page. They provide a telling picture of the conditions that refugees and asylum seekers face. We hope that our report gives a voice to those experiences, which informed our conclusions and recommendations.

Sadly, we heard about substandard, inappropriate and inadequate conditions—especially in relation to accommodation—which presented people with an increased risk of being a victim of crime and/or exploitation, as well as an increased risk of physical and mental health issues developing or being exacerbated.

We heard that support in accessing English as a second language classes is inconsistent and that there is a lack of quality interpreters. English language teaching is essential in helping asylum seekers arriving in Scotland to integrate in our communities, so that issue needs to be addressed.

There is a significant reliance on the third sector, as asylum seekers rely on it for clothing and for accessing transportation and education, medical, community, religious and cultural facilities. I know that the convener of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee has raised the issue of concessionary travel with the First Minister directly. I also note that, later this week, Paul Sweeney will lead a members’ business debate on the issue, which I look forward to contributing to in a personal capacity. On behalf of the committee, I take this opportunity to acknowledge the incredible work of all the third sector organisations that help asylum seekers to find their place in our communities.

Although immigration is a reserved matter, our report challenges the Scottish Government to make full use of its existing powers to support and protect asylum seekers. Among our recommendations, we challenge the Scottish Government to ensure that the third sector can benefit from improved resourcing; to honour its commitment to maintain and enhance the wellbeing of children in local authorities; to maintain and enhance anti-trafficking protections; and to ensure that asylum seekers understand their rights by providing them with accessible education and information.

We look forward to the committee debate, which we hope to secure before the end of the year, and to the Scottish Government’s response to the report in advance of that debate.

I am grateful to my colleague Collette Stevenson for bringing the debate to the chamber.

I was elected to this place just two and a half years ago and have engaged in many debates about poverty, but I am struggling. I am struggling because time and time again, we come here to discuss poverty, its effects and the impact that it has on health, wellbeing, educational attainment—I could go on. Time and time again, the Scottish Government implements mechanisms to alleviate that poverty in targeted areas, such as the Scottish child payment, which has been praised by many as a game changer, and yet, time and time again, those efforts are undermined by a UK Government that has been hellbent on reducing welfare and access to welfare for more than 13 years. A person who needs support in Scotland simultaneously has one hand giving it, while another, from 400 miles down the road, snatches it away.

If we reflect on the 24 years of this still-young Parliament, we can see that this place has flexed its ambition for our country with the creation of Social Security Scotland. It is not a silver bullet—no organisation is—but it demonstrates a clear intent to treat people who need support with the dignity and respect that they deserve. We should contrast Social Security Scotland with the Department for Work and Pensions, which, over the past decade and a bit, has contracted private companies to assess benefit claimants to make sure that they are not scamming the system. People with lifelong degenerative disabilities are still required to present to an assessor frequently. If they do not, they face being sanctioned and losing the support that they need simply to get by.

Even with welfare benefits, getting by is a struggle. The Tories’ benefit cap is set at roughly £14,750 per year for a single adult living outside London. In contrast, the real living wage is the minimum income that it is calculated that a person needs in order to be able to afford life’s basics. The new rate announced today of £12 per hour works out at a take-home pay of around £18,900 per year, after income tax and national insurance.

We cannot have a Tory welfare system that is difficult to navigate—in the hope that people just give up—and makes inadequate payments. The Tories have not even ensured that work pays, either. George Osborne introduced the national living wage as the legal minimum amount that a worker can be paid, but it was nothing but a con—a rebranded minimum wage. Outside London, it amounts to more than £1.50 per hour less than the real living wage, which works out at £2,730 per year less for a full-time worker on 35 hours per week. Is it any wonder that the number of people in the UK who use Trussell Trust food banks has increased from around 26,000 in 2010, when the Tories came into power, to almost 3 million in 2023?

It is time for a different kind of politics. Sadly, we have had no indication that that will come from Keir Starmer’s Labour Party, which will not even reverse the two-child benefit cap and rape clause, which loses families more than £3,000 per year.

While many welfare streams remain under Westminster control, I urge all parties to look to Scotland and the ethos of our devolved social security system. People need and deserve dignity and respect. Work should pay. There should be no more con tricks—a living wage should be exactly that.

During challenge poverty week, I encourage colleagues to engage with the events so that we are reminded of how important it is to alleviate and eradicate poverty.

To ask the First Minister whether he will provide an update on the work that the Scottish Government is undertaking to support the establishment of a pilot safer drug consumption facility. (S6F-02415)

Alongside other Glasgow MSPs, I wrote to the Home Secretary regarding the issue last month. The response suggests that the Home Office will not stand in the way of the Lord Advocate’s authority on the matter, provided that it is exercised lawfully. Although that is welcome, it is disappointing that the United Kingdom Government seems unwilling to work with the Scottish Government to actively progress this public health measure. Does the First Minister agree that it appears that the UK’s inaction on the matter is political rather than pragmatic, and that true co-operation from the Home Office would help to provide even better care and support?

To ask the Scottish Government, in light of the on-going local governance review, what discussions the Minister for Community Wealth and Public Finance has had with ministerial colleagues regarding any potential benefits to public services and assets of granting Glasgow metropolitan status. (S6O-02563)

Metropolitan status is given to city regions in other parts of the United Kingdom and in many European nations. Like Glasgow, many of those cities are home to nationally significant infrastructure. In the next two years, Glasgow City Council is investing £3 million in the Clyde tunnel and the upkeep of Glasgow Botanic Gardens, while the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh is directly funded by the Scottish Government. Does the minister share my view that there is room for a healthy discussion on the long-term funding settlement regarding national assets in Scotland’s largest city?