Chamber and committees

My first question, which is perhaps for Jan Savage in the first instance, is focused on the resourcing of the commission. The commission has not used its power to conduct an inquiry. As we know, it has had to pause litigation work due to capacity issues. Does the commission have sufficient financial and staffing resources to meet its current duties and obligations in Scotland?

We know that there will be future challenges for the commission, and that new duties and powers might arise from the human rights bill. Will you comment on what those challenges might be and the potential need for further resourcing to cover them?

Thank you. Those helpful comments answer some of my supplementary questions.

What is interesting is the discussion and debate around powers for a purpose—new powers for the commission with that sense of purpose. I noted in the “At a crossroads” report the consideration of the wider landscape and the increase in the number of called-for commissioners on a variety of issues that would impact the human rights of individuals. In the Parliament, and perhaps more widely, we are having something of a debate around the need for commissioners, the growth in their numbers and the challenges therein. Do you want to expand more on your views about the increase in the call for commissioners in different areas and perhaps how those calls interact with the work of the SHRC? We have heard a bit about that already. What role does the SHRC feel that it could play instead of some of those other options being taken forward? I do not refer to any commissioner proposal in isolation but more broadly to the principle.

I am interested in understanding more about the costings for new policies that will come in this year. However, my first question is about the impact that delays to new benefits have on forecasting. For example, the delay of carer support payment from spring to autumn has been widely discussed and we have spoken about it in the committee. To what extent does that have an impact on the forecast?

I have a point about the uptake of ADP and the increase in the number of people receiving the benefit. You have said that analysis is under way. Do you intend to share that more widely to inform this committee’s work?

That is helpful. There is a degree of uncertainty around the new benefits that are coming on stream this year, particularly the pension-age disability payment, which will replace the attendance allowance. You have said that costings remain highly uncertain in that space. To what extent has your experience of forecasting other disability payments informed your costings and assessment of the pension-age disability payment?

One thing that will not help with the cost of living crisis is slashing the affordable housing supply budget by more than a quarter in real terms in the coming year. Anti-poverty charities such as the Joseph Rowntree Foundation have used words such as “disappointing”, “brutal” and “baffling” to describe the decision. Surely access to affordable housing is the bedrock of dealing with cost of living pressures. When will the Government recognise that there is a housing emergency on its watch and take action—including by reviewing its budget decisions, which are exacerbating the cost of living crisis?

I am sure that the minister will want to note that that suggestion, which came from civil servants, was not taken forward by the UK Labour Government and was, in fact, dismissed. For the accuracy of the debate, she will want to acknowledge that.

We gather in a new year but, in many ways, not much has changed on the issues that we are debating or the approaches that are being taken to asylum policy and legislation. Prior to Christmas, we had no fewer than five debates on asylum, which covered issues ranging from the Illegal Migration Bill—now the Illegal Migration Act 2023—and the provision of free bus travel for asylum seekers to the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee’s important inquiry into the experience of asylum seekers and refugees and the Scottish Government’s latest independence paper on migration. Those debates have been most beneficial when we have found consensus on our approach and discussed how we can use the Parliament’s powers to make a real difference to the lives of refugees and asylum seekers in Scotland and continue to support them. I point to the important recommendations in the committee’s report in that regard.

On each of those occasions, and in many other debates last year, Labour members condemned the shambolic and uncaring asylum system that the UK Conservative Government operates. On each of those occasions, we reiterated the need for a more humane approach to asylum processing and migration and that migrants, refugees and asylum seekers should feel safe and welcome when fleeing persecution, war and violence. Each time that we have come to the chamber to debate those issues, Labour members have asked the Scottish Government what more it can do to support asylum seekers, address the issues that are outlined in the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee’s report and respond to the challenges that are posed by the Illegal Migration Act 2023.

It may be a new year, as I said, but we have not seen a new approach from the UK Government, which continues to press ahead with the Rwanda scheme despite it being ruled illegal. Next week, it will again be rushed through the House of Commons in its new form. Suella Braverman may have gone as Home Secretary, but the pernicious approach persists, with Tory MPs now battling it out to see how the plan can be made even more deplorable. We have a Prime Minister who now privately thinks that it does not work but clearly sees culture wars as his last throw of the dice this year. I quote Yvette Cooper in the House of Commons yesterday:

“In the end, the only deterrence that the Prime Minister believes in is deterring his Back Benchers from getting rid of him. It is weak … and the taxpayer is paying the price.

It is a totally farcical situation: a Prime Minister who does not think it is a deterrent, a Home Secretary who thinks it is ‘batshit’, a former Home Secretary who says it will not work, a former Immigration Minister who says it does not do the job and everyone”

else who thinks that it is a complete

“sham”.—[Official Report, House of Commons, 9 January 2024; Vol 743, c 228.]

Labour has been clear that we would scrap the Rwanda scheme. It is unethical, unworkable and extortionate. We need real policy changes to deal with the challenges that we face, not the gimmicks that the Conservatives continue to pursue. That is why Labour has set out a five-point plan to fix the asylum system—to form cross-border policing units to crack down on the smuggler gangs that are trafficking people and putting people into unthinkable situations; to clear the backlogs, which we have heard about, to end the long waits and the expensive use of hotels; to reform legal routes for refugees coming to this country; to negotiate new returns and a family reunion agreement with France and other European countries; and to tackle humanitarian crises at source and better support refugees in their own regions. It is simply disingenuous—

I will finish this point and then I will give way. It is disingenuous to say that there would be no change with a Labour Government.

I will.