Chamber and committees

Mr McMillan makes a good point about the importance of work. I have said in the chamber a number of times that there are too many barriers to people wanting to secure work so that they can continue to progress. We must ensure that we break those barriers down; indeed, I will come on to talk about that more widely later in my speech.

That budget also confirmed no cut to the Scottish budget, and affirmed a game-changing rise of £5.2 billion to be spent here in Scotland through the largest block grant in the history of devolution. There was also a large-scale package of capital investment in infrastructure across the UK, including here in Scotland, through a renewable future as a result of mechanisms such as Great British Energy. The confirmation in last week’s spring statement that Labour will invest in the Scottish shipbuilding industry through a boost in defence spending was vital, at a time when the SNP is sending Scottish shipbuilding jobs abroad.

I note that, in the cabinet secretary’s statement, she welcomed an increase in defence spending, although, as usual, it is clear that there has been a complete rejection of all the ways to pay for that. I do not think that we have heard anything serious from members on the Government benches about how that should be paid for.

I gently suggest to the Government—[Interruption.] If it cares to listen, I gently suggest to the Government that, at such a dangerous time, a policy of unilateral nuclear disarmament is deeply unserious. It does not recognise the real challenge in Ukraine and the issues therein. That is before we mention the impact that it would have on jobs and the economy in my West Scotland region and in my colleague Jackie Baillie’s constituency.

I acknowledge that concern has been raised about some elements of the spring statement relating to social security reforms. It is important that people have the chance to engage in full with the green paper that has been published by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. There is a consensus on the importance of reform generally in the social security system to get more people into work. That is where proposals in the green paper that have been long called for, including £1 billion of employment support and giving people the right to attempt work without risking losing their benefits, are right. That is important, and it is also important that anyone who needs support gets it and that we ensure that we protect those people who do need support.

I am about to conclude, so I will begin to draw my remarks to a close.

These are deeply serious global times. Already, some contributions this afternoon have acknowledged the changing nature of the western alliance and the global economic and political consensus on which so much has rested for so long. That has been fundamentally shaken. Even today, as we await the imposition of universal tariffs by the world’s largest economy on friends and foe alike, the world continues to move at pace in ways that nobody wanted to see and which often do not make rational sense.

Such factors have been referenced increasingly by parliamentarians of all parties in debates and statements over the past few weeks. That degree of seriousness, which is required in debates such as these, is welcome. I do not believe that there is anyone on the Government benches who does not recognise how much those events will impact on our national finances, regardless of whether carve-outs are secured or what the scale of the tariffs might be.

All of that is coupled with an urgent need to spend significantly more on defence in the UK and right across Europe so that we can undertake a programme of rapid rearmament. Those are decisions that have to be made and realities that we must face up to. I welcome the Prime Minister’s comments at lunchtime that the UK will take a “calm, pragmatic approach”, whereby we will engage in “constructive talks” with partners and be “prepared for all eventualities”. Therefore, it is not fair to say that no cognisance has been taken of the situation. Actually, there has been a deliberate attempt to take a very pragmatic approach.

Here in Scotland, we need to be equally calm, pragmatic and realistic about all the factors and what they will mean for our finances and to consider the impact on the wider UK finances. That is the context in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s spring statement took place last week, and it would serve us all well in this debate to remember that.

I am pleased that, despite those factors and the significant challenges, which are a worry to many, the chancellor has protected last autumn’s transformational budget. In the past few days, we have seen policies come into place that will make a genuine difference to the lives of many people in Scotland. The uplift in the national minimum wage yesterday—the highest uplift in the minimum wage since it was created by the last Labour Government—delivered a pay rise to 200,000 of the lowest-paid Scots. That sits alongside a generational change to the rights of workers to ensure that work is secure and that it supports people who are undertaking it; to end the use of fire and rehire practices and exploitative zero-hours contracts; and to secure rights from day 1.

I do not think that that is something to be ashamed of, as the Conservatives seem to think. The UK Government has prioritised that, because it is the right thing to do to ensure that people in work have the right support.

Colleagues will have other areas of recommendations to cover, and I do not want to intrude on anyone’s area of interest, so I will hand back to the convener.

I will follow-up on Tess White’s question and ask about the pattern of challenges that exist for people who have a learning disability and the commitments that have been made to them on their human rights. We discussed the £20 million and the lack of accountability on that. We know that £2 million was allocated for health checks for those with learning disabilities and that a pledge was made that every person with a learning disability would have one. We know that that target is not being met, and analysis by the Fraser of Allander Institute shows that, in some health board areas, no health checks have been offered.

We hear consistently from people who have a learning disability that they feel forgotten and that their human rights are forgotten. Do you think that there is a pattern here in what the Government is doing? What can be done to interrogate that?

That was useful. We look forward to hearing the outcome of your discussions with COSLA—that will be helpful to the committee.

I will broaden my questions. The report looked at the challenge of people continuing to be admitted to institutions on the basis of their learning disability. How we define “learning disability” remains a significant challenge more broadly. For example, the Scottish mental health law review has been considering the definition of learning disability as a mental health issue for some time, and we are expecting legislation on a range of those issues. Admitting someone to an institutional setting due to their learning disability is a contravention of the European convention on human rights, so I am keen to understand what particular concerns you have identified around that in the report.

Thank you, Cathy—that was a helpful and comprehensive overview. What I would take from those final comments—I might ask Jan Savage for her reflection on this—is that the work to bring people out of long-stay institutions has been on-going for decades. It feels as though we are no closer to having people not live in the state hospital, for example, than we were all those decades ago.

Jan, are there immediate actions that could be taken to stop that inappropriate placement of people? The recommendations are there, but how do we get that sense of pace that Cathy Asante referred to?

What engagement have you had with local authorities on that work? We know that local authorities face a significant challenge in delivering on a range of issues, such as housing, supporting people through their local health and social care partnership, and non-residential care charges, which are still seen as a significant breach of human rights for many people with a learning disability. Have you engaged broadly with local authorities on that?

My friend Pam Duncan-Glancy is making a very compelling case. Does she agree that, in addition to the learning disability health checks, issues such as the “Coming Home Implementation” report, too many people being in long-stay institutions, inaction by the Government on human rights and, indeed, the outcome of her Disabled Children and Young People (Transitions to Adulthood) (Scotland) Bill have all represented failure? Does she also agree that people with a learning disability would say that they feel failed by the whole system?

I thank the minister for advance sight of his statement. The update follows the debate that we had on the issue just a few weeks ago. What came out of that debate was a solemn realisation across all parties of the stark and numerous pressures and changes that we have seen across the globe. Indeed, the minister acknowledged global events in his statement to some extent, but we have seen the war in Ukraine, wider inflationary pressures and now the challenges of a changing global economic order, not least in the United States in the past five months.

Although the minister’s modelling seems to want to wish those things away, we cannot escape the reality of those five months. The minister might wish to face both ways, but we cannot ignore the positive steps that the UK Labour Government is taking today to raise the national income wage, for example, to give a pay rise to 200,000 of the lowest-paid Scots to deal with the low pay that he speaks about in his statement.

The Scottish Government has more to do against the global challenges. It was the Scottish Government that ended the fuel insecurity fund at short notice in the middle of the reporting period, removing critical support from those who are most at risk of fuel poverty. Has the Government done any analysis of that and of how many people would not be experiencing fuel poverty if the fund had not been cut?

Secondly, in previous years, the Government has also cut energy efficiency budgets and massively underspent the £1.3 billion that it intended to spend over the reporting period. Has the Government done any analysis of that and of how many people would not be experiencing fuel poverty if the Government had lived up to its commitments?