Chamber and committees

The cabinet secretary has had five years since the bill was passed in which to prepare for the new benefits. For the carer support payment truly to be an improvement on carers allowance, it will have to be paid to more unpaid carers and take into account their varied and very difficult situations, which I have already outlined.

Carers Scotland estimates that only one in 10 carers is eligible for the payment, with many not meeting qualifying criteria. I think that members in the chamber would agree that it seems wrong that unpaid carers cannot access a benefit that has supposedly been made for them.

Since the establishment of Social Security Scotland, we have been promised repeatedly by the Government that things will be better, yet many Scots are being made to wait with uncertainty, just as they were under the DWP. Therefore, can the cabinet secretary say with confidence that the proposed carer support payment will be the much-needed, long-term improvement to carers allowance that will allow more unpaid carers to access support, or will it merely be a tweak that fails Scotland’s unpaid carers who desperately need it, now more than ever?

John Taylor, you mentioned the current challenges with regard to interaction with local authorities, particularly around housing supply, and you said that wider dispersal will exacerbate those issues. Is the challenge with local authorities about what is available, or is it about how Mears chooses to interact with them? There have been a number of high-profile cases, which I think we would all recognise and which have been particularly concerning. Is it your view that the problem is with the interaction with local authorities?

I have one more question on local authorities before I move on to the human rights approach. Caroline O’Connor, in your interaction with local authorities, where do you see the gaps or challenges in terms of wider support provision?

Are you cognisant of the criticisms that have been voiced by people such as the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland of the circumstances in which pregnant women, in particular, have found themselves and of the issues around how hotels are managed and supported by Mears? How do you react to that criticism, take it on board and make changes? Much of the evidence that we have heard thus far has suggested that that does not always happen—or, at least, there is a real feeling that it does not always happen.

We have had a conversation about resource and how such decisions often become very resource driven because of the pressures that local authorities and other agencies face. The evidence that the committee has heard thus far from people such as the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland is that we need to refocus on the issue and look at it through a human rights lens, because there are serious concerns about dignity. John Taylor spoke about dignity and respect in his opening statement, and there is a lack of dignity and respect for people who are seeking such support. In a previous question, I referred to high-profile cases of people being housed inadequately or in inappropriate settings and the challenges that people who are being left destitute face.

Do you think that Mears takes a human rights approach? What more do you think that you could do in your contracts to achieve the dignity and respect that you spoke about?

Obviously, the committee is cognisant of the Illegal Migration Bill and has been looking at its impacts. Caroline O’Connor, it has been suggested that a broader humanitarian strategy that would pull lots of different Scottish Government strategies together might be a better way to respond to that. Do you have a view on that?

Good morning. The committee recognises that asylum and immigration are reserved matters, but we are particularly interested in the devolved areas, especially the Scottish Government’s work to address many of the issues about which we have already heard this morning and throughout our evidence taking.

Will you share with us what involvement you have had with the Scottish Government’s strategies, particularly the new Scots and ending destitution together strategies?

Fergus Ewing is making a very important point related to wider regulation of charities. My inbox has been filled by members of sessions of churches across Scotland who are very concerned. Given that the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland will meet from 25 May, would the member recognise that there might be an opportunity for the minister to re-engage with the General Assembly and the general trustees of the Church of Scotland to find some way forward?

I am very grateful to you, Presiding Officer, for your lavish generosity. I will attempt to justify it with my closing speech.

We have had an important debate this afternoon in which we have heard what I think is a broad consensus in Parliament for the general principles of the bill. As the cabinet secretary outlined in her opening speech, it is a technical bill and we are agreed on the need for it in order to tidy up charities legislation and to make it stronger, to ensure that the public have confidence in charities across Scotland and to ensure that Scotland is in line with England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

What we have heard, across the piece, is that in the later stages of the bill there will be a requirement for refinement of and clarity on a number of points that have been raised by members across the chamber.

Collette Stevenson in her new role as convener—to which I welcome her—made important points on behalf of the committee. She pointed out that the wider review that the cabinet secretary has committed to will require engagement with the third sector not just on these but on wider issues that it has raised with the committee. She made an excellent point about the need to start that engagement early and to ensure that the third sector is approached from the very beginning. Smaller charities should be included in that.

We have heard a lot today about charities that many members know from their parts of Scotland. It is important that they have a strong voice in everything that we do, because they are the people who make changes in communities.

The importance of those charities was highlighted again by Jeremy Balfour in his opening speech. He made an excellent point about good governance being crucial to the functioning of charities. However, like many others, he highlighted that greater support and stability are required for charities to ensure that they can meet their obligations and continue to serve their communities so well.

On the challenges that charities face as they serve communities, Douglas Lumsden made an important point about the challenge of recruiting trustees, particularly in rural communities. Many members represent rural communities and know that charitable organisations are often the lifeblood of small towns and villages and of everything that happens there. They can be long-standing historical institutions, but it can be hard in the modern context, particularly in smaller communities, to enthuse people about taking on the trustee role or dealing with the finances and operation of a charity.

We must keep our eyes open to that challenge and must ensure that we are not putting unnecessary barriers in place for people who might want to become trustees. As I said in my opening remarks, the bill is about striking a balance between transparency, so that there is public confidence, and ensuring that we do not make regulation overly cumbersome, which might put off people who would otherwise want to become engaged.

John Mason made some important points about that. Our exchange during his intervention was about trying to strike that important balance. He made important points about interim and temporary trustees. Charities might need a bit of bridging support; there are people who have professional expertise and might be willing to do that, but might not have the confidence or the legal knowledge to do so.

Mr Mason also made an important point about wider regulation of charities and the need for reporting. He asked whether we should look at how charities that have an income of less than £25,000 should report to OSCR and about the level of scrutiny of their accounts. I hope that we can look at some of those issues as part of our wider conversation.

The issue of communication was raised. I said in my opening speech that many charities had felt unable to contribute to the committee’s consultation because of a lack of capacity. Foysol Choudhury rightly also highlighted that many charities were just not aware that there was a consultation. I hope that the Government will reflect on that.

Pam Duncan-Glancy made the excellent point that communication about the changes for charities will be vital after the bill has cleared the parliamentary process, so that everyone knows what is expected of them and what they need to do. Parliament should look at communication and I hope that the Government will reflect on that.

The Scottish Labour Party supports the principles of the bill. We all want charities in Scotland to be well governed and transparent and to be charities that people can trust. We want to ensure that people who donate to a charity can do so with confidence and that people who volunteer do so knowing that the charity is reputable.

The debate has brought up wider issues about the health of the third sector in Scotland. There are multiple challenges, not the least of which are recovery from the pandemic, cost of living pressures and the demand for services. There is also no long-term strategy to fund and support charities. Parliament has been talking for a long time about three-year funding cycles; we need to look at that in the round in order to ensure that we are supporting charities.

Fergus Ewing made good points about the wider issues affecting faith-based charities and churches. We cannot get away from the fact that the bill interacts with other pieces of legislation. We should look at that, because there is cross-party concern about the issues that Mr Ewing raised. I would be happy to have further conversation with him—as, I am sure, would others.

I might now be going over the score regarding the generosity of the Presiding Officer, and I do not want to fall foul of the chair.

In concluding, I say that there is a real willingness, certainly on this side of the chamber, to work with the Government to get the bill right so that it does what it sets out to do and so that we take with us people from across Scotland’s charity sector. We look forward to the wider work to which the cabinet secretary has committed.

We have heard again from the cabinet secretary that dignity, fairness and respect are the guiding principles of Social Security Scotland, just as we did when she spoke of the bill to create the agency in 2019. However, we know that the Government has failed to deliver. It has handed back social security powers, such as the administration of carers allowance, until 2025, leaving thousands of Scots at the mercy of the Tory-run Department for Work and Pensions. Indeed, as we have just heard from Jeremy Balfour, there are serious issues around call handling and web chats, with 28,000 calls to Social Security Scotland involving people waiting more than an hour. I am sure that the cabinet secretary would recognise that that does not match the 2019 aspiration.

What has she done since coming into post to deal with the operational performance of Social Security Scotland to ensure that it looks and acts like the system that was originally promised?