Chamber and committees

I hear what the member says about the support or otherwise for the motion, but will she recognise the concern about Social Security Scotland, the challenges around waiting times and the issues around fairness, dignity and respect—the motion refers to that—as I outlined in my contribution?

We have debated the benefit cap in the chamber a number of times, and we have been very clear in our opposition to it. However, would the member not agree that the entire universal credit system must be fundamentally looked at and reformed to ensure that all parts of it can better serve those who need it?

In the interests of ensuring the accuracy of the record, the UK Labour Party was talking about a plan to uprate defence spending, not to introduce a 2.5 per cent increase in defence spending right away. In the interests of accuracy, it would be useful to reflect on that.

I am pleased to contribute to this evening’s debate. Clare Haughey’s motion provides Parliament with an opportunity to look back at social security across the UK, including here in Scotland, over the seven-year period. We know that those seven years have been part of a longer period—14 years—of a Conservative Government at UK level that has failed to support people who need the social security system most, failed to tackle poverty and wreaked economic chaos on families and the household incomes of people across this country.

We have had a decade or more of so-called reform through universal credit, but it is clear that it is not working. We have 400,000 more children in poverty now than there were in 2010, when the previous Labour Government left office. As we have heard, most people who are in poverty today are in work, and two thirds of children who are in poverty live in a household with someone who goes out to work. It is clear that, in regard to both the social security safety net and work in this country, the system is not working.

Reform has been debated here tonight, including reform of the two-child limit, which is a pernicious policy. I have outlined my opposition to it in the many debates that we have had—I think that this is the fourth debate in the chamber on the issue, including one that was in Government time.

I find this interesting. We have had a number of party-political broadcasts on behalf of the Scottish National Party this evening, rather than a constructive debate. However, the choice in the election will be on whether to go for Labour’s new deal for working people. I have pushed the cabinet secretary on this before, but is she suggesting that the principles that are held in the Labour Party, such as lifting people out of poverty by increasing the living wage, by ending fire and rehire and by ending zero-hours contracts, are not ones that she would stand behind?

Good morning, cabinet secretary and officials.

We have had a number of meetings on appointees, and we have heard some evidence about the interaction between the Department for Work and Pensions system and that of Social Security Scotland and about the reciprocal arrangements for recognising appointees. We know that Social Security Scotland already recognises DWP appointees as part of the transfer process that is under way, but, because witnesses have spoken about that, it would be useful to know how we can better streamline processes, so that that recognition happens more easily and continues to happen in the future and so that someone who is recognised in one system is also recognised in the Scottish system.

Cabinet secretary, would you like to make a general comment on that? We can then see if there are any follow-up questions.

Thank you.

We are not starting from scratch, because information is shared, but it is useful to understand that extra process at Social Security Scotland.

For the record, and for those of us who were not here when the bill was introduced, do you want to say what some of the additional checks are?

I note what the cabinet secretary said in her answer, and in previous answers, about an incoming Labour Government. She will, I am sure, want to support transformational policies such as the new deal for working people, which will put money in people’s pockets.

Does she recognise, however, with regard to her own responsibilities in Scotland, that, prior to the recess, the annual release of official statistics showed that child poverty levels have been static at 24 per cent? That is significantly above the interim target of 18 per cent, which the Scottish Government is now almost certain to miss. Does she accept that she is going to miss those legally set targets? If so, when will she come to the chamber and outline her concerns about that?

As we have said throughout, we are interested in the lived experience element, and in people talking about their experience of disability, which would suggest that model of people’s experience that we have in the social model. I do not understand why the cabinet secretary would not support workers and people with that lived experience giving voice to it through the council in terms of what is being proposed.

Returning to the point that I was making about support for the bill, the trade union movement supports it, and Roz Foyer of the STUC commented just this week that,

“by rejecting Mark Griffin’s Bill,”

the Scottish Government

“would be sending out the message that workers injured at their work and now in need of assistance from the state can be discarded or ignored.”

We know that the bill has the support of organisations that recognise that it does not represent the end of the road for employment injuries assistance but is a step in the right direction towards getting voices heard and making calls for assistance. Such groups include Action on Asbestos, Long Covid Scotland and the Injury Time campaign, ably led by my friend and colleague Michael Marra and supported by legends of the game in Scotland. All those people have spoken about the hazards that they experienced at work and the need to be covered by employment injury assistance. That should involve an expert body that looks at the evidence and makes recommendations. They consistently told us that an advisory council was a step in the right direction towards that.