Chamber and committees

I was just coming on to talk about ADP and PIP and trying to understand our devolved context in relation to ADP. The reforms to PIP are at UK level; we have already explored that in the opening speeches. ADP is devolved to this Parliament, and it is for this Parliament to decide where ADP goes in the future with regard to its sustainability. I accept the points that have been made about the interconnectedness of payments, including gateway payments, which Liz Smith and other members have referred to. There will have to be proper consultation and communication on that from the DWP to the Scottish Government.

I return to employability, because it is extremely important that we have a focus on that in Scotland. At the same time as we have faced the challenges that I was outlining prior to Mr Balfour’s intervention, the uptake rate of the devolved job start payment has been only 21 per cent. In addition, in recent years, there have been significant cuts of around £30 million to the Scottish Government’s employability budget. There is a serious debate to be had about the need for reform of the system more generally, and it is a shame that the Scottish Government is not particularly stepping up to that debate, either today or more widely.

Labour believes in the dignity of secure employment, recognising that it is the most sustainable route out of poverty for those who can work, but that we must protect those who cannot. I encourage everyone to engage constructively in the consultation and the process, even on the reforms that will be carried out at both UK and Scottish levels.

I move amendment S6M-17242.1, to leave out from “calls” to end and insert:

“agrees that any reforms to social security policy must respect the dignity of work, while also being fair and protecting the most vulnerable who are unable to work; notes the Pathways to Work: Reforming Benefits and Support to Get Britain Working Green Paper and that its proposals are currently under consultation; recognises that a number of the areas covered in the Green Paper are devolved to the Scottish Parliament and will therefore not change as a result of the Spring Statement; notes the proposals within the Green Paper to support and encourage people into good work and to reduce bureaucracy for those in receipt of social security; welcomes that this is backed up by a £1 billion commitment for employability services across the UK; acknowledges that well-paid, secure work is the most sustainable route out of poverty; welcomes, therefore, the action taken by the UK Labour administration to increase the National Living Wage and improve rights for workers through the Employment Rights Bill, and is concerned that the disability employment gap in Scotland is wider than elsewhere in Great Britain, that one in four people in Scotland rely on welfare spending from the Scottish Government to cover their living costs and that there are as many as 84,000 young people in Scotland who are not in work, education or training.”

It is important that the court’s ruling and the court itself are respected. We should also reflect, as the cabinet secretary did, on the words of Lord Hodge: the judgment must not be read as

“a triumph of one or more groups ... at the expense of another”.

I return to the issue of the legal advice that the Government receives. As has already been raised, this is not the first case that the Scottish Government has lost. It joins a long line of court cases that the Government has lost on not just this subject matter but many others.

Does the cabinet secretary have confidence in the legal advice that ministers receive from the legal directorate? Given this point of reflection, and given the number of legal cases that have now been lost by the Government, will she consider reviewing how legal advice is sought by the Government and how it is delivered and acted on?

As we come together this afternoon to discuss the international situation, it is clear that we live in very uncertain times. Already, many of the speeches have highlighted the backdrop of conflict and violence—particularly violence against women and girls—that we see in the world, and the harmful rhetoric that we see in online spaces, as well as the fact that the global economic consensus, which we have known for so long, is, in essence, being turned upside down. It is in that context that we hold this debate, and uncertainty is the key theme.

In times of uncertainty and in an ever-changing and uncertain world, people will cleave to constancy. We gather today as we return from our Easter recess and after the great Christian festival of Easter, which speaks about hope, faith and endurance. A lot of people around the world find constancy in their faith, which is rooted in their hope for a better world. Recently, we have also marked Eid, Passover, Vaisakhi and other festivals, as the seasons change and winter gives way to spring and darkness gives way to light.

I mention that at the outset of my speech because we live in a world where, all too often, our respect for and understanding of one another’s beliefs and one another’s faith have, in some ways, been forgotten. We have forgotten how to co-exist, how to live together peaceably and, I think, how to disagree better. Therefore, it is important that we start by acknowledging the sense of hope that is felt by so many people in the world.

I will offer a few reflections on some of the corners of the world that are acutely in our minds at the moment and on some areas on which we often do not focus as much as we should.

In March, I had the opportunity to travel to Bosnia-Herzegovina with a delegation of people from the Parliament, public life in Scotland, academia and the media, along with the excellent Beyond Srebrenica organisation, which will be known to many colleagues across the chamber. Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Balkans are a part of our world that have truly experienced the darkest moments of humanity through a long conflict in the 1990s, the ramifications of which continue today, and the people who lived through the experience of genocide at Srebrenica and other places around Bosnia-Herzegovina still feel the impact of those events. The opportunity to visit those sites and to meet people who experienced the war and the genocide to gain a better understanding of their experience and of the issues that persist in that country today was hugely moving, but it was also hugely informative for me and for those who joined the delegation.

Today, there are far too many people in Bosnia-Herzegovina and that part of the world who engage in denial of what happened at Srebrenica. There are actors in that complex country, in relation to which a complex agreement was made after the war, who seek to diminish and reduce the stories of the genocide to nothing more than what they would call rumour. There have been attempted coups in parts of Bosnia-Herzegovina, particularly in the Republika Srpska, and there are still people walking the streets of communities side by side with those against whom they would have carried out horrendous acts.

The plea from everyone I met in Bosnia-Herzegovina was not to forget about the Balkans, Bosnia-Herzegovina and the real challenges that exist and persist. I had the opportunity to speak with many people who are afraid of the current context of the international situation. They are deeply concerned about the actions of Russia and Vladimir Putin—as we know, they live very close to countries that border Russia and, indeed, to the conflict in Ukraine.

In particular, one man I met spoke about how he feels more afraid now than he did at points as a child growing up in the 1990s, and he is worried about what the future holds for his children. He told me that, when the war in Ukraine started, he went out and bought a gun. When I asked him why, he said, “I do not know how to use a gun and I am not sure that I ever will. I just need to know that I have done something to try to protect my children.”

That brought home to those of us who were speaking with him how people feel in that region of the world. They need the support of the international community and for it to stand with them and not to forget about them, and to offer a degree of protection and support that will ensure that, in the future, we do not see the aggression that we have seen in recent years in the regions in and around Ukraine and bordering Russia.

I wanted to put all of that on the record because the experience that I had in Srebrenica will not leave me—those rows and rows of white stones that mark where so many Muslim men and boys were massacred. There is a stillness and a sadness there, and there is evidence of the reality of what human beings can do to one another when they do not heed the calls of history or the need for us to understand one another better.

I am pleased that, on Holocaust memorial day, the Scottish Government made a commitment to on-going funding for wider genocide education. We recognise the importance of Holocaust education within that and of the work that is being done across Scotland to tackle rising antisemitism.

Daniel Johnson is absolutely right. What we heard time and again from people we met in places such as Sarajevo and Srebrenica was how quickly we forget. For a period of time in Europe, we saw stability and peace that we thought was the consensus, but the reality is that that has been shattered once again. It is important that we all take the issues in Ukraine seriously.

We have also reflected today on the passing of Pope Francis. I add my voice to the tributes that have been paid across the Parliament, because he was another constant in an uncertain world. The global situation was never far from the mind, the words and the actions of Pope Francis, because he was a Pope who prioritised leadership on the world stage and ensured that people could find reflected in him their aspirations for a better world. He was a Pope for the poor and the dispossessed. He opened doors in the church and in the world to mercy, compassion and hope. He was a Pope for our environment. “Laudato si’” was a transformative document that called on us all to be “stewards” of the world and the environment that we live in.

The Pope also spoke out passionately and with compassion on the situation in Palestine and Israel. Indeed, most recently, on Easter Sunday, he called for a ceasefire, for a release of hostages, for aid to get through to starving people and for an end to the killing and the violence. We have also heard how the Pope spoke with the parish priest in Bethlehem each and every day of the conflict right up until he died.

We should all rededicate ourselves to following the Pope’s example. We must not forget the corners of the world where there are conflicts, and we should unite as a Parliament to do that.

The principles in the heat in buildings bill were almost the only thing that the Climate Change Committee praised the SNP Government for in what was a damning indictment of the lack of progress on net zero. There is still much risk in the bill and much detail that needs to be understood. Indeed, the minister said that what the bill establishes is not a prohibition but a target. Much remains to be seen with regard to that.

Given that the Government has failed to deliver on its climate change targets and literally broke its own legislation on them, how can the people and industries of Scotland have faith that it will deliver on and meet its heat in buildings targets?

An important part of the effectiveness of Social Security Scotland is the uptake of Scottish benefits. As the cabinet secretary knows, around 84,000 young Scots—around 15 per cent of them—are not in work, education or training, and we know that that can have lifelong effects on people. The Scottish Government’s job start payment is designed to support people between the ages of 16 and 24 who are out of work and receiving low-income benefit for six months prior to finding employment. It has an uptake rate of just 21 per cent, according to the latest statistics. How confident is the cabinet secretary that that payment, which Social Security Scotland is operating, is being targeted to support people into employment and is as effective as we need it to be?

I am pleased to close on behalf of the Scottish Labour Party in this debate on the Aarhus convention. It has been an important and wide-ranging debate in which people have brought different perspectives from across Scotland and have helped to put on the agenda the importance of the Aarhus convention and our desire to see faster progress on compliance with it.

My colleague Sarah Boyack put things in context when she spoke about the rights that we should all enjoy in Scotland: rights to clean water, open space and access to nature. Our nature is envied around the world—we live in a country that has so much potential.

We also heard about some of the significant challenges that we have experienced in Scotland. My colleague Monica Lennon spoke about nature depletion and the concerns about what is happening to our natural environment. Several other colleagues touched on that as well.

We heard about the frustration and disappointment of so many people at our failure to comply with the convention. I pay tribute to the two committees that raised the debate: the evidence that we have heard in those committees has been overwhelming. It has included the frustration and anger that I spoke about, the challenges that exist, and how much more we have to do to protect our natural environment and to give communities and individuals the rights to protect that environment and access to it. I pay tribute to the conveners, Karen Adam and Edward Mountain.

I recognise the need to hold those private interests to account. I commend Mr Macpherson for his speech and for his championing of the port of Leith and the community interests in relation to it. I recognise such interests in my region, on the west coast, as well.

Access to justice is at the core of the matter, which is why the work of the committees is so important. We heard compelling evidence that, when people are denied that justice, there is a real detriment to communities and to their sense of place.

The lack of action is frustrating. In his contribution, Douglas Lumsden referred to the Government as “letting down rural Scotland”. That is correct, but we heard from Michael Matheson and others that it is not just rural Scotland that is being let down; it is our urban communities as well. People are encountering significant problems, such as with poor health and wellbeing, because they cannot access nature and green space in their community.

We know—and we have rehearsed the arguments this afternoon—about the failure over many years to achieve compliance with the convention and about the many missed deadlines. Over the years, there have been lots of advisory groups and support for the Government on human rights—the First Minister’s advisory group on human rights leadership in 2018, the national task force for human rights leadership in 2021 and the environmental improvement plan in 2023—all of which pointed out the real and significant challenges that exist. However, very little action has come from that.

In fact, in many respects, what we have seen is a move backwards. All of us would recognise that the stalling of the proposed human rights bill and action in that space represents a significant challenge, which is to be long-grassed into the next session of Parliament. Every time the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee takes evidence, that is pointed to as a significant challenge.

Fundamentally, this afternoon’s debate has been about ensuring that people have access to justice. A number of important comments have been made about the review of legal aid and the need to make legal aid more available and accessible. I appreciate that the Government is doing work on that—I am sure that the minister will have something to say about that in his winding-up speech—but the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee is working on the issue, too. The issue of environmental courts is one of many that I will not have time to get into, but it is clear that we need to have a wider debate on it.

I am grateful to have had the opportunity to take part in this afternoon’s debate. It is clear that more action is needed. The Government needs to hear that message, and it needs to respond accordingly.

The book of Wisdom in the Old Testament says:

“Length of days is not what makes age honourable, nor number of years the true measure of life;
understanding, this is grey hairs, untarnished life, this is ripe old age.”

Even if you are not a person of faith, I think that that poetry speaks to all of us.

Our colleague has gone too soon but, today and in the days to come, we have an opportunity to measure her life, her love, her contribution in this place and the contributions that she made to so many people. That includes her constituents, and many of the stories of how she helped them we will never know, but we do know of the countless people she would have helped with her kindness, compassion and dedication.

We can measure her life and love for Keith, for Lewis, for Jack and for all her family and friends. The book of Wisdom would say of those bonds:

“Coming to perfection in so short a while, she achieved long life”.

I did not know Christina for as long as so many others in the Parliament, but I found a photograph last week of the Edinburgh pride march in 2022, which was led by Alex Cole-Hamilton, Maggie Chapman, me and Christina. She brought her two nieces that day, and she was so proud to be showing them the importance of allyship, standing with others and standing up for equality in Scotland, so much of which she helped to build.

We had a great chat that day on what was a long march around Edinburgh. We spoke about everything from our shared admiration for James Connolly to who could whistle the loudest when passing people who were objecting to the pride march. Of course, as colleagues opposite would expect, she tried very hard to convince me of the merits of Scottish independence. We agreed to disagree on that one.

However, that is how I will remember Christina McKelvie: on that sunny day in Edinburgh, full of joy, love and energy, on a march for the equalities and human rights of people she stood with for so long. That was the measure of her life. [Applause.]

Is Alexander Stewart seriously suggesting that giving a pay rise to 300,000 Scots—the lowest-paid Scots—is simply a matter of red tape? Is he suggesting that giving people day 1 rights on sick pay or ensuring that they are not subject to fire and rehire or zero-hours contracts is bad?