Chamber and committees

I know about the cabinet secretary’s points from my committee work and agree with many of them, but what work has the Scottish Government undertaken to look at the fact—it is a fact—that the number of complaints that Social Security Scotland has received has increased by 174 per cent in just one year?

I think that we have heard a lot of the SNP rhetoric that we will hear during the Westminster election.

I thank the organisations that provided helpful briefings for today’s debate. We all want a social security system that can help people to realise their potential and provide a safety net when they need it.

As the cabinet secretary stated at the beginning of the debate, Parliament has worked on a cross-party basis to support the delivery of new payments. Ministers have highlighted, for example, the Scottish child payment, which is making a difference, and we should collectively welcome that.

However, Katy Clark was right to say that today’s debate should have been about scrutinising the Scottish Government. It would have been more honest for the cabinet secretary and SNP and Green members to acknowledge the many and increasing challenges that Social Security Scotland is facing, as well as the increasing questioning of the future sustainability of the new and existing benefits.

The Conservatives have stated—I have stated—in previous debates that we cannot believe that ministers and SNP and Green MSPs have not received complaints from constituents about Social Security Scotland processing times and arrangements. It does not help any of us—certainly not our constituents—to dismiss or sweep those concerns under the carpet.

Despite the SNP-Green Government claiming that all is well, it is clear that the transition to and establishment of social security powers in Scotland to date have not been as easy or straightforward as Scottish ministers suggested they would be. The fact that the DWP and UK ministers have been able to provide contingencies and extensions is welcome—it shows that the UK is working together—but those assists will be in place until 2026 to support the delivery of what was meant to already be in place here. Promises made by SNP ministers about the establishment capabilities of Social Security Scotland have clearly not been realised.

We are in the middle of a Scottish budget process. Although ministers today highlight a forecasted £1.1 billion more in welfare spending, what is not clear—although it is something that we should all, across the parties in the chamber, take seriously—is the future sustainability of that spend, especially as we see the developments in relation to new demand-led payments. The Parliament’s Social Justice and Social Security Committee has consistently, and on a cross-party basis, raised concerns in Parliament about the future financial sustainability of our welfare budgets, but we have not heard much about that from ministers today.

I do not think that that is the case. The decisions that the UK Government has taken to increase Barnett formula funding have provided the Scottish Government with the resources to make different decisions and to make that investment.

I was about to come on to the point about UK Government support. We have heard a lot from SNP and Green back benchers about that, but let us look at the facts. This year alone, UK Government benefits will increase by an average of £470 for people in Scotland, which will benefit more than 700,000 of our fellow Scots.

The UK Government has provided £94 billion of support for households in navigating the cost of living crisis. No one has mentioned the real heart of that crisis, which is the global pandemic and the illegal invasion of Ukraine. It is welcome that, just last week, the UK Government announced the third instalment of its cost of living payment, which will be paid later this month to qualifying households and will benefit more than 680,000 people across Scotland through payments totalling £900 to each of those households.

The UK Government has also announced a national insurance cut that will put £754 in the pockets of more than 2.8 million working Scots.

In the interests of transparency, will the Government consider including a requirement in the bill for the Government to report regularly on the progress that is being made on the remediation programme? I want to scrutinise the finances around the bill. The minister has said that £41 million is available, and I think that the Scottish Government has £97 million in Barnett consequentials. As a committee, we are interested to know where that is being spent and for that to be reported back to us.

That is good. Thank you.

That is helpful. Thank you for that.

During the investigations that we have undertaken, specific concerns have been raised about electric cars and bikes in buildings that will be part of the scheme. What discussions are taking place about car parks underneath those developments specifically? There has, quite rightly, been quite a drive to have more electric vehicle charging points fitted, but there are not necessarily any regulations on what that will look like. Will that be considered as the bill progresses? There were quite serious concerns. Factor management is involved. I know that that is not specifically part of the bill, but there are various issues that relate to how management around that will be taken forward. Has that been picked up? Will it form part of what is coming?

That is helpful. I have previously raised the issue of hotels, care homes and student accommodation, where people are sleeping. Is the Government minded to include those places in the bill, as they have been in legislation in other parts of the United Kingdom? What plans are there for those buildings?

Conversations that I have had suggest that work is progressing for student accommodation, but I have specific concerns about hotels, care homes and other buildings over 11m in height not being included. What is the Government’s position?

Good morning, minister and officials. I have a couple of questions that are a bit scattergun, but bear with me.

I want to go back to our previous conversations about other private entities. Has there been a conversation about other private entities—for example, organisations that design, manufacture and install cladding systems—being required to help to fund cladding remediation? Is that too complicated for the current system?

In reality, such buildings almost have a version of a night-watch in place. However, we need to consider how hotels and student accommodation are regulated and how fire evacuation programmes are managed. Perhaps some of the work that is going on in England should be replicated up here. That might require a wider piece of work that goes beyond the bill and includes the factor management aspects of these buildings that we have discussed.

Last year, 59,240 patients attended the Princess Alexandra eye pavilion. For a patient in Edinburgh or the Borders with a detached retina, the need for urgent emergency surgery is critical. The Cabinet Secretary for NHS Recovery, Health and Social Care has suggested that, if the Edinburgh eye pavilion is not replaced, more surgery will be centralised in the Golden Jubilee national hospital in Glasgow. Does the First Minister think that it would be acceptable for eye surgery to be centralised in Glasgow? Will he agree to meet Lothian MSPs urgently to discuss those concerns and get ministers to change their mind and commit to a new, replacement eye hospital?