Chamber and committees

Thank you very much, convener. Good morning, colleagues on the committee and minister.

I begin by offering my apologies for the need for a manuscript amendment. In my haste to get amendments lodged before the deadline, I failed to note a typographical error in my original amendment 18, which set the moratorium period at 30 days. Let me be clear that that was an error. I support the longer period that is now noted in the manuscript amendment. That is an explanation to the committee of the need for amendment 18A.

I will now speak to amendment 18 and its purpose. I understand that the committee has discussed the matter of a moratorium at length, in the light of the evidence that it heard during its stage 1 proceedings, that there is no universal agreement on the provisions that should or should not be included in a moratorium, and that there is a variance of views. I also understand that there has been a degree of debate about whether to have a moratorium established through the bill or in regulations.

I have lodged amendments 18 and 19 because it is important that we have more detail on how a moratorium might work and whom a moratorium might best serve. By doing that in the bill, we can have certainty and clarity on the moratorium more widely. My amendments have been lodged so that we can have a clear debate on the issue this morning.

I am happy to speak briefly to what amendment 18 would do regarding that moratorium. My amendment would give greater permanence to and clarity on the structure of any mental health moratorium by establishing in law that a moratorium on debt collection in cases of mental ill health will exist; establishing the conditions under which the individual is deemed to be receiving mental health crisis treatment; establishing who can apply for the moratorium on the debtor’s behalf; establishing what must be contained in any application for a moratorium; and establishing the length that any such moratorium would last if granted to a debtor.

It was clear from my engagement with a number of organisations that, as I said, there is a variance of views. However, on balance, many mental health organisations are keen to see the moratorium outlined in the bill and for the provision to be broader than what has been proposed by the Government, so that we do not just deal with initial emergency treatment but go wider and deal with care in community spaces.

I will briefly touch on the other amendments in the group. Amendment 16, in the name of Colin Smyth, would compel ministers to make provisions in regulations for enforcement of the moratorium and for sanctioning of creditors who did not abide by the regulations. The amendment would sit quite neatly with what I have outlined in amendment 18 by ensuring that people were compelled to comply with the outlined moratorium.

I also support amendments 20 and 21, in the name of Daniel Johnson, which push the Government on how it will consult Parliament and this committee on any regulations pertaining to a moratorium, if a moratorium is not established through the bill. Regardless of whether my amendments are agreed to, it is vital that we have a debate on a moratorium and that such a moratorium is clearly scrutinised by the Parliament and, crucially, by the stakeholders that I have mentioned, particularly those in the advice and mental health support sectors, to ensure that the moratorium works, is enforceable and provides the most benefit to the people who need it.

I move amendments 18 and 18A.

I thank Kate Forbes for securing today’s debate. For all of us in the chamber, it is always a pleasure to be able to highlight and speak about the valuable role of Scotland’s third sector in our economy and in our society. Kate Forbes set out a number of the challenges in a very considered opening speech.

I know well the impact that the third sector has on the ground, working with individuals across Scotland. Most of my career before coming to the Parliament was spent working in the third sector. I declare an interest in that regard, having worked for Enable Scotland, as colleagues probably know, before my election to the Parliament. I was able to see up close the work that it and other third sector organisations do, particularly in the learning disability and social care space.

When we think about the third and voluntary sector, it is often such engagements that come to mind. We have already heard a number of examples from across Scotland in the debate. That is how third sector organisations, through their interactions, have the biggest impact on individuals, communities and society.

When we think about the provision of support services to people in our communities, we often see the third sector going above and beyond with its delivery and being praised for its high standards. When looking at social care services, The BMJ found that regulated social care services in the third sector are frequently of a higher standard than those in the private sector and that people often choose to receive care and support from third sector organisations that they trust and that are rooted in their local community.

There are other examples of that connection and trust fostering relations. Organisations such as the Outward Bound Trust equip young people in communities across Scotland with skills for life and engage them in community projects such as the Mark Scott leadership for life award. MSPs have reached a consensus on securing funding for that project for the coming year, following strong cross-party work, and we hope that that will continue. Countless third sector organisations across Scotland need and deserve support and are at the forefront of our minds during this debate.

Kate Forbes’s motion rightly highlights something that we do not consider nearly as much as we ought to, which is the economic impact of such organisations. The SCVO’s sector statistics for 2022 estimated that 46,500 charities, community groups and social enterprises were active in Scotland, employing 135,000 paid staff, supported by more than a million volunteers. They had an estimated turnover of £9.2 billion and spent more than £8.8 billion during that period. That is a significant economic footprint, which other reports—not least the work by the Royal Society of Edinburgh, which was referred to by a number of speakers—have also exemplified.

We have heard about the importance of ensuring that the third sector continues to contribute to our growing economy. We can do that by ensuring that the sector has certainty in planning, which largely means knowing where resources will come from. It is also important that funding is fair and that its structures work for the organisations. For those who have not already seen it, I point to the SCVO’s list of fair funding asks of the Government. It calls for multiyear funding, uprating and better communication and dialogue about funding awards. We should reflect on all of that, and I hope that the minister will say something in her summing-up speech about the progress of the Government’s fair funding review, because the SCVO is keen to see progress on that.

It is clear that we must ensure that the third sector is at the heart of Scotland’s economy, as a considerate and respected partner. We realise the potential of the third sector, which Kate Forbes’s motion rightly highlights, and that it can continue to make a huge contribution to Scotland now and in the future. I think that everyone here agrees with that, but we must do more to support charities across Scotland.

Following on from the fair funding review that I mentioned earlier, two recommendations have been progressed, including a commitment to notify by the end of March organisations that are going to be in receipt of two-year funding as part of the pilot. Can the minister say anything about the progress on that and whether that target will be met?

Good morning to the panel. Following on from that point, I am interested in how the current process is working in transferring people from personal independence payment to adult disability payment or child disability payment. How quickly is the authorisation process working for the people who are being transferred? Does anyone have views on, or insights into, the current process?

If there is further information, that would be helpful to the committee.

Does anyone else have a view, based on the work that you are doing with other groups?

The arguments on the budget and on the required growth of the economy were well made. I did not detect a focus on economic growth or employability in the Scottish Government’s budget, nor did I detect one on improving access to work for people across Scotland, including parents, especially those of young children. We could have another debate on the council tax freeze, which has attracted a degree of commentary from across the country on what could have been paid for instead of that intervention, which was not welcomed across the piece.

If the minister is going to support that, I will certainly give way to her.

The minister will be aware of the “Dying in the margins” work by Marie Curie and the University of Glasgow, which has reinforced the significant demand for adapted properties for people who are diagnosed with a terminal illness. When someone passes, there is an impact on their family when they have to move out of an adapted property very quickly.

What will the Government do to engage with that piece of work to ensure a sufficiency of adapted properties and support for people who are grieving?

The minister knows full well that we had a number of debates in this place prior to Christmas on the devolution of employment law, and we have stated clearly that we need to have a UK floor for the standards that are expected. Our new deal for working people, which I am about to come on to talk about, has to represent the floor in terms of what we will deliver for people across the UK, with a view to the second phase, which will be on exploring what we can devolve further. We need to ensure that the standards are embedded across the UK.

What are those standards? They are a real living wage paid to workers, rights from day 1, the end of zero-hours contracts and the end of fire and rehire. Those should be the standards; that should be the floor—and that is supported by both the Trades Union Congress and the Scottish Trades Union Congress. That new deal for working people could represent a huge moment under a Labour Government, hopefully in the not-too-distant future, putting money back into the pockets of working people and supporting people in work. The point that I was making prior to the minister’s intervention was about that persistent low pay, which impacts on families across Scotland and hinders people from accessing all the support that they need in order to afford the essentials.

I will refer to some of the excellent work that has been done across Scotland, which I think would attract a degree of consensus in the chamber on where we can learn and do more. Fife Gingerbread is an excellent organisation, from which we heard during our inquiry. It has excellent advice and support services for lone parents and families in need. It co-ordinates with local employers to parent proof vacancies, establishing an action plan to help parents through training, education and going into employment, backed up by financial advice and all the holistic services that we would expect to be offered in supporting people on their journey back into work. I met representatives of Fife Gingerbread, and they commented to me that their whole approach is not just about the individual and the person seeking work; it has to be about the employer and the flexibility that we can expect from employers—which is not always forthcoming. I encourage the Government to continue to work in that space, to meet Fife Gingerbread again and to do further work.

As I have said already, I think that we need a floor of rights for workers and expectations on employers, and I think that we can do that at UK level with our new deal for working people. I am being expected to take a lecture on employment rights from a Scottish Government that does not pay £15 an hour to social care workers, despite the demands of the trade unions, that sold off £700 million of renewables licences without a single condition for workers and that itself used zero-hours contracts to deliver leaflets for the Rutherglen and Hamilton West by-election, so I do not think I will take any further lectures on employment rights from the Government.

Having been generous with interventions and having relied on your generosity, Deputy Presiding Officer, I am conscious of the time. I will conclude by saying that Scottish Labour remains committed to working with whoever is willing to drive forward a mission to tackle child poverty. We welcome the report and what it has done to highlight parental employment issues. We hope that we can do more to tackle childcare and transport issues, for example. However, fundamentally, we know that we must have a floor of rights across the UK and that that can come only with a Labour Government.