Chamber and committees

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.

I note what Mr Balfour said in his contribution. More widely, I note that the pension age winter heating payment is a benefit that has been created under powers that have been newly devolved to the Parliament. We have not discussed the benefit in recent months, but we did so in the lead-up to that devolution process.

As Mr Balfour mentioned, we must also acknowledge the context of the decision to extend the benefit only to people who are in receipt of pension credit, and the Scottish Government’s agreement to that rule. I have said that it is for the Parliament, and this committee, to continue to work on the new benefit. It is fair that they should decide what any new benefit in Scotland should look like. It is appropriate that such a discussion should be had. I think that all members across the Parliament are willing to come together and debate the relevant criteria.

However, we must recognise, too, that regulations have not yet been introduced. The Government has intimated its intention to pass the benefit back for a temporary period of a year, in order to deliver it to people who are in receipt of pension credit. We have not yet seen regulations or held a debate on that. I have not yet been able to scrutinise and understand Social Security Scotland’s system, to learn why it cannot deliver a different one and why the handing back has had to happen. We must recognise where we are on that.

It is fair to say that we must consider several issues affecting how the benefit could best be delivered and what changes there might be. Mr Balfour has proposed two enabling benefits in this area. More widely, more work needs to be done—for example, on how pension credit and housing benefit interact, and on what decisions and outcomes might arise from any future fiscal events at UK level.

I understand why Mr Balfour has lodged amendment 5. It is important that, as a committee and as a Parliament, we consider the benefit in a Scottish context. However, there are unanswered questions around his proposal, not least in terms of who the benefit would reach, the cost, how the rules would be applied and whether the system could deliver the benefit that he seeks.

Given that we have a period of a year before the benefit is enacted and will be carried by Social Security Scotland, I consider that it would be wise for us to consider it in the round. I do not reject his proposal out of hand, but I think it important that we have further scrutiny and debate. Stage 3 could be an appropriate point to continue that process.

Amendment 105 would introduce the ability for assistance to be backdated where applicable. The power would allow Social Security Scotland to award entitlement in a range of circumstances that were not foreseen in the 2018 act and the subsequent regulations.

I am pleased that the amendment has the support of the Child Poverty Action Group in Scotland. Evidence from CPAG in Scotland’s early warning system highlights that individuals can lose out on money that they would have been entitled to had they applied earlier, because entitlement cannot be backdated to a date before an application was received.

I believe that members will have received examples of where that is relevant in the briefing for stage 2 that CPAG produced. Some of those scenarios are: delayed applications in relation to a Scottish child payment being dependent on an individual receiving a qualifying benefit; applications that span reaching adult or pension age; terminal illness and issues therein; and changes of circumstances between application, submission and decision for adult disability payment.

Amendment 105 seeks to speak to the principles behind the social security system, which is there to provide a safety net for the most vulnerable when they need it. The system should not have people losing out without good reason, particularly when the system responsible for the delay in accessing assistance has not been taken into account.

I recognise what the cabinet secretary said, that there can be practical implications—financial and otherwise—for the Government and Social Security Scotland to consider around the implementation of backdating. It is important, however, that we ensure that the principle of backdating is at the centre of the system. Amendment 105 would seek to do so for the situations that I referenced.

The report follows from a series of reports published by the Poverty and Inequality Commission earlier this year. Among the comments of the anti-poverty groups that responded to the programme for government were those of Save the Children, which said that there is

“nothing in this programme for government that truly shifts the dial on child poverty.”

It is also concerning that the SHERU report itself says:

“A lack of publicly available data of sufficient quality makes it very difficult for us to assess whether policies are working or not.”

Given that the Government has had to be reminded of the importance of accuracy in the model that it uses to measure progress on child poverty, and given that eradicating such poverty is the First Minister’s and the Government’s number 1 priority, is it not extremely concerning that an independent report seems to suggest that the Government does not know what is having an impact and what is not?

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to a recent report from the Scottish Health Equity Research Unit, which highlights that “Core outcomes related to inequalities and health are not improving significantly and some are getting worse”. (S6O-03747)

Would you be concerned that one commissioner would have too much to look at? Say that we had a disability commissioner who covered absolutely everything, including, I suppose, neurodiversity. I do not think that that has been fully defined yet—there is certainly disagreement on some of the definitions that were contained in the consultation on the LDAN bill. Are you concerned that that subject matter is too vast?

Also, people want a commissioner to do two things: to advocate, as you have quite rightly talked about; and to investigate. A lot of issues that came up during the LDAN bill consultation process were to do with breaches of people’s human rights, not least of which were the use of seclusion and restraint in schools. Many of those issues are faced by disabled people and their families in particular. Is dealing with all that too vast a prospect for one commissioner?

I want to pick up the issues relating to the interaction of your bill and the proposed bill on learning disabilities, autism and neurodivergence. Were I to be generous, I would say that the there is a high degree of uncertainty as to the progress that the LDAN bill will make. We do not think that it will reach fruition by the end of this session of Parliament.

There was debate about whether an LDAN commissioner or commission should be included in that proposal. Is there an opportunity to pick up some of those issues in your bill? If so, how would you deal with the diversity in that community?