Chamber and committees

I want to take time to reflect on the debate that we have had this afternoon, which has helpfully shown the consensus on the bill, as well as pointed to some of the challenges that exist and the work that will need to be done at stage 2 and stage 3 to ensure that we have the best possible bill. The bill will amend the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018, and we need to take the opportunity to progress the shared ambition of treating people with dignity and respect.

Colleagues have recognised the technical nature of the bill. In evidence to the committee, we heard it reflected that people often found it difficult to engage with some of the bill’s principles, because of their technical nature. Collette Stevenson, the committee convener, clearly outlined that in her speech, helpfully covering what we heard in evidence and the areas in which people want further work to be done. She reflected the need for accessibility and consistency that we heard from a number of people, particularly those who have lived experience of the system, which has been useful in focusing our minds before we come to the later stages of the bill.

I take this opportunity to thank all those who contributed evidence during stage 1, particularly people who use the system. They all had something to contribute to our process, and I know that they will be keen for amendments to be lodged as the bill progresses.

A number of speakers have raised the importance of the statutory footing of the Scottish child payment and the framework that will be created for new benefits for care-experienced people, particularly care leavers. Maggie Chapman spoke about that in her opening contribution. It is important that people who are care experienced have their voices heard in relation to not just the framework but the processes that we will take forward in order to develop the benefits. That has been true of the Scottish child payment and it will be true of the work on childhood assistance.

It has been helpful for organisations such as the Child Poverty Action Group to provide briefings and give evidence on what more could be done to improve the Scottish child payment. Some of the arguments that Bob Doris prosecuted on issues such as tapering and avoiding cliff edges, and on what further work we can do to enhance the benefit, were well made and very much reflect what we heard in evidence.

CPAG’s suggestions in advance of stage 2 cover issues such as how we define a child who would be in receipt of payments and the backdating of payments. It is important that all parties look at those issues in some detail ahead of stage 2 and beyond.

It is important to reflect on some of the contributions that were made on determinations and redeterminations of assistance. Marie McNair brought to the fore some of the issues that we heard in committee. A number of organisations across Scotland have thoughts on how we might improve that process to ensure that everyone has their redetermination carried out in an appropriate and fair way.

We heard quite a number of important points about audit and about supporting vulnerable people to be protected and taken out of audit processes. The cabinet secretary might have more to say on that in her summing up.

As I have said already, Scottish Labour will support the bill at stage 1. We see this as an opportunity to push forward to ensure that fairness is at the heart of social security in Scotland. We look forward to the scrutiny that will come at stage 2 and stage 3 to ensure that we get the best possible bill.

I return to the point about data. You have provided helpful qualitative evidence, and we heard some of that last week, too. However, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has said that we cannot reach definitive conclusions because of a lack of data, despite the encouraging evidence that you have all referred to. What data do we need?

Secondly, the Government talks about 60,000 children being “kept out” of poverty, but I am aware that that model uses a range of factors that are based on an invented or imagined scenario in which certain Government policies do not exist and the Scottish child payment is held up against that. I am keen to hear your views on the accuracy of that model. Jack, would you like to start?

Good morning. We are particularly interested in understanding the effectiveness of the child payment in reducing poverty. The first broad question that I am keen to get the panel’s views on is what we know so far about the effectiveness of the child payment in lifting children out of poverty.

Other panel members may want to reflect on the point about data but, in the interest of time, we are also keen to understand the extent to which the Scottish child payment is impacting on deep and persistent poverty. Do we need to do more work on those specific families in order to understand the picture? Ruth Boyle might want to answer first.

We had a discussion last week about keeping people in poverty versus lifting people out of poverty, and about the relevance of the poverty line. Do you have a view on the terminology?

I want to follow up an exchange in the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee about what qualifies as a temporary break in care. A concern was raised about people who are in a period of legal detention and whether the policy intention that that would qualify as a temporary break in care would be met by the regulations. I understand that there was an exchange of letters to confirm that that is still the policy intention, but does the cabinet secretary want to put anything on the record about that concern, which was raised by that committee?

Other—

Last year, the cabinet secretary published a nine-point plan to end food bank use, but the Trussell Trust stated unequivocally that it was “disappointed” with the lack of ambition in the plan and that it failed to show the “requisite leadership and urgency”.

I hear the cabinet secretary saying that the Scottish Government would want to work with an incoming Government, so I am sure that she will agree that an incoming Labour Government—which would prioritise ensuring that work pays and that we support the stabilisation of the economy so that food prices go down—would be very welcome.

How does she respond to those comments by the Trussell Trust? When will she return to her nine-point plan and ensure that it is delivered with the ambition that is required?

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to address food poverty, in light of the recent figures published by the Trussell Trust showing that its network distributed 262,400 emergency food parcels in the last 12 months. (S6O-03502)

Wisdom, justice, compassion and integrity are the values that, 25 years ago, this Parliament committed itself to and that every parliamentarian must live up to. Those words are also inscribed on the mace at the front of the chamber.

On the opening day of this Parliament, Donald Dewar said:

“We will make mistakes. But we will never lose sight of what brought us here: ... to do right by the people of Scotland”.

It is for each of us to reflect on how we do right by those who have sent us here. To my mind, that means taking responsibility for our actions and responding accordingly.

Claiming thousands of pounds from the people who sent us here and then misleading the press and the public about it, I believe, shows no wisdom of judgment. I believe that it shows no integrity in holding oneself to account, and it shows a lack of compassion for those who are sitting and watching our proceedings, aghast at what has taken place here today. I think that that damages all of us and the very institution of Parliament.

The events of the past month, and of the past week in particular, have shown an utter failure on the part of the SNP and, in particular, John Swinney, to do anything to guard against that damage. We have had the unedifying spectacle of the SNP and the First Minister spending weeks and months trying to defend Mr Matheson. Just a week ago, the First Minister rejected sanctions in an extraordinary performance at First Minister’s questions. Then, this morning, we heard that the SNP was performing a U-turn and would back the sanction. However, SNP members got themselves into a situation this afternoon in which they sought to abstain—they did not vote on any sanction at all, and then refused to vote for the motion that they had successfully amended. To call it an “unedifying spectacle” is an understatement.

It is, of course, welcome that the sanction has now been applied, but there are serious questions to answer around the judgment that has been exhibited by the First Minister and SNP members over the past week, which has been

“riddled with inaccuracies and reeks of prejudice”.

That sounds familiar, but those are not John Swinney’s words from last week but the words of former Prime Minister Boris Johnson defending himself as the House of Commons Committee of Privileges investigated Tory sleaze, including partygate. Along with his allies, the former Prime Minister deflected, and attacked Harriet Harman for having made public comments and for, in his view, politicising the process.

Now we have the First Minister, no less, and allies of the former health secretary making similar criticisms about the impartiality of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. I have to say that some of the language that was used in the chamber this afternoon, particularly in relation to the convener of the committee, was outrageous. It should be a moment when we hang our heads in shame because such behaviour has been imported into this Parliament, watched over by the SNP.

Those have been astonishing misjudgments by someone who is supposed to be the experienced set of hands and fresh leadership. Perhaps we should not be surprised, because, sadly, this is not new. My colleague Jackie Baillie outlined in some detail the record of failure in this regard by the SNP.

It is clear that if Michael Matheson does not do the right thing and resign, the saga will be recorded in the growing list of SNP sleaze incidents for months and years to come. The SNP acts with an impunity and a hubris that shows that it thinks that this will never come back to haunt it. All the while, faith in our politics and our devolved system slip further and further.

That is why, if Michael Matheson does not do the right thing and resign, the Labour amendment is so important. It sets out our belief that it is time for Parliament to have a recall mechanism to empower our constituents, so that they can hold us accountable when we fall short of the expectations that we set for ourselves and that they have set for us. We have already seen the introduction of such a system at Westminster. It was used in Scotland in the Rutherglen and Hamilton West recall petition and by-election last year, although I point out that, in the process leading up to the sanction of Margaret Ferrier, the SNP MP Allan Dorans sought to vote with the Conservatives to reduce her sanction to nine days in order to avoid having a recall petition and subsequent by-election. That tells us everything we need to know about the SNP’s priorities—party first, country and constituents second.

It is beyond doubt that this Parliament must have a right of recall. It will be for Parliament to consider such proposals in the coming weeks and months, but today it is for Michael Matheson to reflect on his own behaviour. I am sure—and my dealings with him have shown me—that he is a decent man. He must now reflect on what has taken place. He must reflect on the judgment and the view of the Parliament. He must do the decent thing and resign.

If, however, he clings on and the Government continues to defend the indefensible, it is clear that the public will sit in judgment on this saga, and they will have their say very soon. Is it not clear that the people of Falkirk West deserve the same chance to decide who represents and speaks for them in this place, and to have the opportunity for a fresh start?