Chamber and committees

I am grateful, convener. The contributions of colleagues have been helpful. As Mr Balfour and others have alluded to, section 16 is a contentious section—in fact, from the evidence that we took from stakeholders, it is probably the most contentious section of the bill, and it is those stakeholders whom I am keen to put at the forefront of our consideration.

I recognise and understand the principle of desiring information for audit. It is important for understanding how the social security system operates, its impact, its inefficiencies and efficiencies, and the support that it rightly gives people. It is also important for identifying where there might be fraud and error—particularly fraud, which can have a criminal element. We should all be concerned about that.

I would not support Maggie Chapman’s approach of removing section 16 from the bill entirely, because I think that important work is being done in this space.

In relation to Mr Balfour’s amendment 10, I recognise the concerns that have been raised. The amendment is challenging, so perhaps we could do further work in consultation with the stakeholders I spoke about to understand how the system might work more efficiently. There are opportunities to look at co-designing regulation, which might give people more input than they would have over something that is in the bill.

I will make a brief contribution, if I may. I have heard what the cabinet secretary said about amendments 95 and 96, and I have read the purposes and the explanation that it is an approach to tidying up issues in the bill. However, I share the concerns that have been raised about SCOSS perhaps feeling that its power is weakened somewhat and I think that we have to guard against that.

I would be keen for the cabinet secretary to reflect on that in summing up, particularly on the powers and duties that Mr Balfour was referring to. The points in amendment 11 about increasing the powers of scrutiny are very important. Ahead of our stage 3 consideration, we might wish to reserve judgment on a number of those items, but I am keen to put that on the record and try to get some clarity.

I am grateful, convener. The contributions of colleagues have been helpful. As Mr Balfour and others have alluded to, section 16 is a contentious section—in fact, from the evidence that we took from stakeholders, it is probably the most contentious section of the bill, and it is those stakeholders whom I am keen to put at the forefront of our consideration.

I recognise and understand the principle of desiring information for audit. It is important for understanding how the social security system operates, its impact, its inefficiencies and efficiencies, and the support that it rightly gives people. It is also important for identifying where there might be fraud and error—particularly fraud, which can have a criminal element. We should all be concerned about that.

I would not support Maggie Chapman’s approach of removing section 16 from the bill entirely, because I think that important work is being done in this space.

In relation to Mr Balfour’s amendment 10, I recognise the concerns that have been raised. The amendment is challenging, so perhaps we could do further work in consultation with the stakeholders I spoke about to understand how the system might work more efficiently. There are opportunities to look at co-designing regulation, which might give people more input than they would have over something that is in the bill.

I acknowledge what Mr Doris has just said and what he outlined in his contribution. It is helpful to the point that I am trying to make, which is that, in relation to section 16, I would like to see further work to put on a statutory footing some of the measures that Mr Doris talked about. I say to Mr Balfour that removing part of section 16 by amendment and not replacing it with something else gives us an opportunity at stage 3 to consider what we might do to put some of those things on a statutory footing. That is why the issue is important—I want to put that on the record.

I am sure that the cabinet secretary will want to talk about some of this in her closing remarks, but perhaps we should think about how we could put different requirements, different forms of consequence and different forms of support on that statutory footing. That is why I have sympathy with Mr Balfour for seeking to take out part of section 16 so that we can return to it at stage 3.

The convener is asking for brevity. I could go on, but I will leave it there. I am very grateful.

We are supportive of the Government’s amendments in this group.

I will turn briefly to Mr Balfour’s two amendments. I recognise some of what the cabinet secretary said, particularly on amendment 126, around ensuring that there is flexibility in the system to appoint the right person to receive money on behalf of a child, and around not interfering or challenging the established processes.

I hear the cabinet secretary’s concern that family court situations might be played out within the social security system. We need to be very careful, and I am reassured by what she has said about the processes and procedures that will be in place.

On amendment 9—or do I mean amendment 126? I am getting my amendment numbers mixed up. In relation to third parties being appointed, I have some concerns around trying to understand exactly the views that have been expressed by the third sector. There has been a variety of views, and this debate has been helpful, but the further clarity that Mr Balfour is looking for from the cabinet secretary would be helpful to have prior to making our decision.

Undoubtedly, this is an important issue. I am sure that, after 17 years, another working group will be widely welcomed.

It is clear that making work pay and accelerating the just transition will also be vital components of reducing bills. To do that, significant investment in renewables needs to come from the whole of the UK working together. GB energy, which will be headquartered in Aberdeen, will play a crucial role in bringing down bills and delivering energy security. Recently, Scottish National Party MPs failed to vote for GB energy. Will the First Minister confirm that a publicly owned energy generation company, based in Aberdeen, will have the support of the Government? What work is he doing in his renewed constructive relationship with UK ministers to move those issues forward?

It is a privilege to open for Scottish Labour in this debate.

There are days when we will always remember where we were, and events that live long in the memory. For most of us, for the people of Europe and, not least, for Ukrainians, 24 February 2022 will be one of those days. The return of full-scale war to the European continent rocked the foundations of international norms and brought destruction and terror to a country that has only ever sought to exercise its free will and defend its sovereignty.

In beginning our debate this afternoon, it is important that we recognise that, for all the disagreements that we have in this chamber on a day-to-day basis, and for all the disagreements that we have seen in the United Kingdom Parliament on many issues, on this subject we have seen a common sense of purpose and unity across the Parliament. I would extend that to the unity of purpose that we have seen across Scotland.

I am very pleased to see that the new UK Labour Government has continued the strong support for Ukraine that we saw from the previous UK Government. Both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, were at the United Nations Security Council yesterday, and their comments showed the continuing strength of support and the role that the United Kingdom plays in the international community in galvanising support for Ukraine and standing up to the aggression of Vladimir Putin. That aggression, if unchallenged, sends signals to other malign actors that borders can be drawn by force. That was a very important contribution yesterday.

That is why I think that our continued support for Ukraine is so important. It has been an early priority of the new UK Government, and it has always been a priority of the Scottish Government. We must all continue to engage our allies and friends across Europe and beyond on the collaborative efforts to deliver enhanced assistance for Ukraine. The bravery of Ukrainian citizens and soldiers in the early days of the war, when the survival of Ukraine seemed uncertain, and now, in the face of continued Russian aggression, is inspiring. They need us to continue to offer our support. It is critical that they receive the resource and the training that they need to continue to defend their homeland now.

Over the past few weeks and days, the required discussions have taken place on new packages of artillery, air defence, armoured vehicles, the speeding up of deliveries and the commitment of £3 billion a year in military aid for as long as it takes, as critical elements demonstrating that Ukraine can and will outlast the aggression of Putin. It is the least that we owe to those who are not only justly defending themselves and standing up for democracy and the rules-based international order but defending many of us against threats.

In the face of such colossal human suffering on our doorstep, we must continue to provide all the support that we can, not only to fight against that terror machine that is the Russian Government and establishment but to hold open a door for those people who have been forced to flee their homeland.

As the cabinet secretary and Meghan Gallacher have already done, I pay tribute to the organisations, local authorities and members of the public across Scotland who have welcomed displaced Ukrainians into their homes, communities and hearts. Time and again, people have stepped up to support those refugees who come seeking safety from persecution, violence, and conflict, whether from Ukraine or elsewhere around the globe. They represent the very best of us. Their empathy and generosity of spirit as well as practical support to the nearly 214,000 Ukrainians who have arrived in the UK, including the 155,400 who came through the homes for Ukraine programme, have not gone unnoticed and will not be forgotten.

As I was preparing for the debate, I thought about the Irish proverb “Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireann na daoine”, which means “We live in one another’s shelter”. That is a very apt reflection on the plight of those Ukrainians who could, in another time and place, be any of us. We must keep that thought at the heart of our discussions.

I restate to those Ukrainians who are with us here that Scotland will remain their home, that they will have a welcome here for as long as they need and that support will be provided. We on these benches are always ready to work with the Scottish Government where necessary to continue to adapt and enhance that support, and I am sure that I speak for all parties in the chamber who want to continue to collaborate with the Government on that support. I hope that the spirit of partnership continues in the interactions between the UK Government and the Scottish Government, too.

As part of that support, I am delighted that we continue to have a cross-party group on Ukraine, which discusses all these issues and works with the Ukrainian consul general and Ukrainian organisations across the country to keep these issues alive on the agenda.

I was also pleased to see some recently elected Scottish Labour colleagues in Westminster travel to Ukraine to see first hand the destruction that has been wrought and to consider the support that is needed. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to those former MPs and MPs of all parties who have taken part in that experience and have always stood up for Ukraine.

I pay tribute in particular to Stewart McDonald, who is the former Scottish National Party member for Glasgow South. He has taken a keen interest and has worked across the House of Commons in order to keep the issues alive and to stand up to the Russian aggression. It is important that we recognise that.

In demonstrating our solidarity with, and standing beside, Ukrainian people, and in order to ensure that there is a strong welcome for those who must flee, we must continue to always have it in the forefront of our minds that they have made the ultimate sacrifices for their country’s survival and freedom. Together, for as long as it takes, we will stand to ensure that Putin and his aggression do not win and that Ukraine is victorious.

In the context of a wider debate about the devolution of the winter fuel payment, the Poverty and Inequality Commission’s advice on whether the payments should be means tested said that that should be explored. What is the cabinet secretary’s view on that advice, which came from her own commission?

I will speak briefly in support of the amendment. The principle is well established: the principle of uprating UK benefits has been established and the new Government has committed to it. Organisations that support people, particularly those in the disabled community, expect uprating. On the basis of the principle and intent, it is the right thing to do.

Similar to what I have said previously, there is a desire to ensure that care leavers are well supported and that the payments come on stream at the right time.

I have a degree of sympathy with Jeremy Balfour’s amendment 1 in ensuring that the Government produces relevant regulations. We have often seen things not happen, and having timescales is important. I would add the caveat that it is important for the system to be designed by people who are care experienced, who sit within the well-established structures across the work that has been done on the Promise and on other issues. When the committee took evidence at stage 1, we spoke about that. As I said, I have a degree of sympathy with the idea of trying to compel ministers to do that.

On amendment 2 and Jeremy Balfour’s concern about the timing of the election and the implementation of regulations, there could be a negative impact, depending on the outcome of the election and who forms the Government, but it could go the other way, too, of course: someone might want to change the regulations to make them more wide ranging or do something different, depending on further consultation and on what happens with different groupings. It works both ways, so I perhaps have less sympathy with amendment 2.

We are happy to support amendment 27, in the name of the cabinet secretary, given the tidying-up, technical nature of it.