Chamber and committees

That is another thing that the committee may be keen to return to.

Thank you. With your indulgence, convener, I will start with a brief supplementary question to Marie McNair’s last line of questioning. The cabinet secretary touched on her policy announcement on the two-child limit. I am sure that the committee will have a chance to discuss the matter at greater length, particularly when we scrutinise the budget. However, the cabinet secretary mentioned the speed with which she wants to act, the interaction with DWP, the need for data, and the child poverty task force, which is working at a UK level. She and I have discussed the two-child limit in the context of that work, so it would be helpful for me to understand when the decision was taken to make that announcement. I understand that it was put into the budget document a week and a day ago and that the Scottish Fiscal Commission did not have time to cost or analyse the decision. Given the speed with which the cabinet secretary appears to want to act, it would be helpful to understand when the decision was taken.

So, you are not able to say when you took the decision?

I think that has been the story all week—I have been jinxing the cabinet secretary, every time that we have debated.

I am pleased to close on behalf of Scottish Labour in an important debate. I will pick up where other speakers have left off in reflecting on the importance of ensuring that boys and men understand the vital role that they play in reflecting on and changing their behaviours, and not leaving it to women and girls to tackle the scourge of violence, aggression and all the issues that have been discussed and debated. It is disappointing that Ben Macpherson and I appear to have been the only male speakers in the debate. There has been a range of inspiring and important speeches, but they have all been made by women. We have to reflect that more men must take responsibility in the Parliament and in society for our behaviours and that we need to work together.

In summing up, I want to reflect on the many contributions that have been made and the many actions that we can take from the debate and move forward with. The motion for debate focuses on the role of young people, and we have heard much about the concerning nature of what young people are experiencing. It is important that we learn from that and move forward. We need to ensure that we have good education in schools, which we have heard from a number of speakers. Of course, there needs to be education of young women and girls so that they understand issues of consent and respect and the support that they can get. Crucially, as I said at the start of my speech, we need to ensure that boys and young men are educated, that they have positive role models, that they understand the real issues that exist around consent in respect, and that they reflect on their behaviours and have space in order to do that. We will all want to take that away from the debate and do more work on it.

That is why am glad that Katy Clark raised the work that is being done in Scottish Labour. We have a suite of policies that I think we could look at on a cross-party basis. The minister has referred to the work that has been done by the Government, and other members have spoken about the work of their parties to move the issue forward. It is clear that toxic masculinity is on the rise, that we have serious and concerning issues on sexism and misogyny, and serious issues with access to harmful pornography. I recognise the work that has been done across the Parliament to look at many of those issues in depth—to look, for example, at better online regulation, at the education piece and at the need for positive role models. It is important that we continue to work together on those issues.

I highlight the work on strangulation to which members have referred today, such as the event that was held last week. My colleague Claire Baker has been involved in that work. A consensus has come out of today’s debate that there is more work that we can all do together to look at those very serious issues.

I was pleased to hear members refer to some of the international issues that sit across the 16 days of activism, not least the very serious issues in Afghanistan. We should all take those issues seriously, and reflect and take action on them, so it is important that Beatrice Wishart was able to bring that aspect into the debate.

In the latter section of the open debate, we heard powerful contributions from Pam Gosal, Elena Whitham, Carol Mochan and others, reflecting on the questions that we, as a society—and as men and boys—need to ask ourselves. Pam Gosal’s challenge to us all was to get to a stage at which mothers—it could also be fathers—say to their sons, “Who are you going to be when you go out tonight, and how are you going to treat women?” That is vitally important. Ben Macpherson followed that up by saying that it is not enough just to not “be that guy”—we should all try to be a better person and a good guy, and think about our behaviours. Those two reflections were extremely important.

As I said, I am conscious that we could have had more men speaking in the open debate, but I acknowledge that the First Minister will make a contribution at the debate’s conclusion. That is important, and it shows that the whole Government is taking the issue seriously.

It is clear from the contributions from members on all sides of the chamber that we all have more work to do. It is not just about the 16 days of activism, although they are important. There are 365 days in a year, and we need to ensure that we take the issue seriously, and that—crucially—men and boys take our role seriously. We must work to change attitudes and behaviours, and to ensure that we have respect for women and girls and that we build a more equal society as we move forward.

It is fair to say that there is cross-party consensus, and some of the frustration is that there was cross-party consensus across the manifestos for the 2021 election, which has been followed by a five-year parliamentary session. I do not deny that lots of things have happened in the course of both that election and the parliamentary session so far, but, as we heard at last week’s evidence session, there is a frustration that we will not have got to the stage of legislation in that five years.

I will move on slightly to other areas where people feel that there has not been progress. There is an opportunity for the Government to consider how it will use its remaining time in office to advance many of the issues that the minister hears when, for example, she comes to the cross-party group on learning disability or engages with people who have a learning disability.

At the moment, there is a significant issue with learning disability health checks, which I have been raising, particularly around the pledge that was made that everyone would be offered a health check in 2023. That has not happened. We know that funding of £4 million to health boards was attached to that pledge, but some health boards, including NHS Lanarkshire, have offered no checks at all. That is really concerning. I raised that with the First Minister on Thursday, but I am not sure that he fully grasped what I was asking about or had knowledge of it.

That is another totemic issue that speaks to the frustration of people who have learning disabilities, so this is a good opportunity to ask the minister to respond on that point, and to say what work she is undertaking to understand that picture and deal with the situation.

It would be helpful for the people who have a learning disability who have given evidence to the committee or come to the cross-party group on learning disability to be able to engage in that as well.

My colleague Clare Adamson started to touch on some of this, but it would be useful to understand the other non-legislative interventions that the Government intends to make to support people. We know that there are huge issues around school exclusions, for example, and seclusion and restraint. We have heard about access to employment and support for that. There are also issues about specialist training on learning disability and the barriers that exist. We also have the national moves to try to tackle bullying and stigma.

What more do you intend to do in the remaining time in this session of Parliament to deliver?

As I did last week, I refer to my entry in the register of members’ interests, as I am a member and a former employee of Enable Scotland.

As we have touched on, last week’s panel referred to other bills that the Government has delayed—the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill and the human rights bill—as well as the bill that we are discussing this morning. We heard that that

“represents a tranche of disappointment”,—[Official Report, Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, 26 November 2024; c 22.]

which was quite stark. The situation was particularly referenced by those with a learning disability who gave evidence.

We could look at that and say that there is a pattern that might illustrate that legislation that focuses on the equality and human rights of people who have a learning disability is being deprioritised by the Government. I appreciate that the minister has touched on that already, but what would you say about the particular views that were expressed last week?

Would you accept that people who have a learning disability were made a promise on no less than two occasions by two ministers, and that has been broken, so they feel a sense of frustration? That is against the backdrop of everything that I have just said about other pieces of legislation. We heard last week that they feel as if they

“remain unheard”

and that they are

“not a priority for Scotland.”—[Official Report, Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, 26 November 2024; c 3, 4.]

I am keen to understand whether the minister intends to update Parliament on the progress that she wants to make. She has acknowledged that there is a significant challenge with the health checks, so it is important that we have regular opportunities to scrutinise that going forward.

I am grateful to have the opportunity to close the stage 3 debate on behalf of Scottish Labour, and to reflect again on some of the contributions that we have heard, and some of the progress that we have made on the social security system in Scotland.

During the bill’s journey, we have been able to reflect on what is working in social security and on what could be improved. The debates that we have had on the amendments at both stage 2 and stage 3 have allowed us to do that. I am sure that there is much for the cabinet secretary to reflect on with regard to what more needs to be done, and for all of us to reflect on in considering the need for continued scrutiny of Social Security Scotland and the on-going potential for new benefits, which I will come on to speak about.

I will reflect briefly on Maggie Chapman’s opening and concluding contributions. I heard what she said about the UK Labour Government and our ambitious plan to support people to get back into well-paid and secure work and put our new deal for working people, which I have spoken about many times in the chamber, on a legislative footing to ensure that work pays and is secure for people. That is absolutely a driving agenda for the UK Government.

It is also worth reflecting that many people in this country want to work but cannot, because they are not getting the support that they need to be able to do so; we should not shy away from that. The UK Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Liz Kendall, has made it clear that with £240 million-worth of investment across the UK, we can help people to get back into the workplace. However, people need to know that there is always a safety net, that there is no judgment, that there will be support when they need it and that they are not being forced back into work. It is clear that that is the agenda in the Government’s white paper on getting Britain working again.

We hope that the Scottish Government will be part of that partnership, because—this is important—good things happen here in Scotland in relation to employability and supporting people to get back into work, but there is more to do. Maggie Chapman spoke about universal services. We need to have a health service that works and delivers for people, so that they can get the support that they need to go back to work. Tomorrow’s budget will show us the reality of the money that has come from the UK Government and whether that will be spent on health and social care, as we have called on the Scottish Government to do.

I will touch briefly on Marie McNair’s contribution. I thought that she made some good points about the committee’s work, but I was disappointed to hear the tone that she took on pension age winter heating assistance. We had a debate today in which we had an opportunity to vote as a Parliament to put that on a legislative footing—I have rehearsed those arguments. I point out to Ms McNair the support that is coming to this Parliament through the UK budget—£1.5 billion this year and £3.4 billion next year. We will see the colour of that money tomorrow in the budget process, and I am sure that ministers will be listening intently to this debate.