Chamber and committees

Good morning to members, the minister and her officials. I, too, have been working with the “Hope instead of handcuffs” campaign over a number of years on how the issue can be looked at and how the bill could create a framework, such as, I think, we all want.

I very much welcome Ross Greer’s amendment 212. I also note that the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland commented on amendment 163 in relation to elements of the strengthening of data collection. Amendment 212 would achieve what I wanted, so I am happy not to move amendments 162 and 163, but I hope that the minister might, in summing up, look at comments that organisations have made about strengthening data collection.

I start by paying tribute to and thanking a number of people who have helped to shape my amendments: Beth Morrison and her son, Calum, who have been working towards Calum’s law; Daniel Johnson, my Lothian colleague, who is working on a bill that is related to the issue; and a number of organisations, very much including those that sent the letter that all committee members received on 23 November. It was from the Promise Scotland, the Scottish Human Rights Commission, the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland, the Children and Young People’s Commissioner and the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and it was on how we can develop a statutory framework on restraint and seclusion. My amendments in the group look to secure that for secure accommodation.

Amendments 155 and 156 look to ensure that we have consistency in training regulations. It has been noted that the councils that are responsible for delivering training have different systems and that different commissioners are provided for that. That needs to be tightened up.

Amendments 155 to 161 not only provide duties to record and report restraint within secure accommodation, but look towards restraint being used as a last resort.

I hope that the minister considers that the amendments reflect what the Scottish Government and members of the committee want to see at stage 2. If not, I will be happy to work on the amendments at stage 3.

I note that, at stage 1, the minister commented that it would make sense to look at ensuring consistency in the reporting of incidents of restraint. I also note the calls from a number of organisations for the Government to develop statutory guidance and for there to be reporting specifically in relation to persons with disabilities. Does the minister feel that that information is being properly reported by anyone other than the Care Inspectorate?

I definitely think that that should be looked at.

A number of issues have been touched on that both Governments can look to take forward collectively—Willie Rennie made a characteristically measured contribution. However, today, we have lacked a vision for our social security system.

On that point, 150,000 of our fellow Scots who have never been able to get into work—that is 6.8 per cent of our working-age population—need additional support to achieve that. One of my key questions is whether cuts to employability schemes in Scotland over recent years have hampered that happening.

Changes to carers allowance have been touched on. The extension of payments towards six months for people who have been bereaved is something on which I think there is cross-party consensus.

We have seen a negative impact on rural households from changes to the winter heating payment. Maggie Chapman, who represents North East Scotland, did not want to mention the fact that, under the SNP-Green Government, her constituents are facing an unfair and cruel cut to the winter support that they receive. The Scottish Government should look at that again, because many people in rural Scotland are losing out because of the SNP-Green Government.

Bob Doris highlighted Marie Curie Scotland’s briefing and the call for more targeted support for those who are terminally ill and their families and carers. I hope that we can look at that issue in future debates. I agree with Marie Curie Scotland that we need to see more support.

Last week, I chaired a round-table meeting with Kidney Care UK, at which I was pleased to hear from the minister responsible for palliative care about work that is progressing to deliver a national home-dialysis energy reimbursement scheme. That is really welcome, but, although kidney patients are an important group of patients, they are few in number. I hope that we will see more cross-party support for patients who run NHS medical equipment in their homes. The former First Minister said that providing such support would be a priority, but we have not quite seen it happen.

I do not have any more flexibility.

The UK Government has also raised the minimum wage from £11.44, which will result in an increase of more than £2,000 a year for many households. Let us not forget that the state pension will increase by an average of more than £900 this year, benefiting more than 1 million pensioners in Scotland.

Taken as a whole, both Governments can and should be working together to deliver the welfare system that we want. As I have outlined, the UK Government has made many welcome changes to support people during the cost of living crisis.

Across the parties in this Parliament, we need to take seriously the future financial sustainability of our welfare system in Scotland. The Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament are responsible for that, and it is important that, in future debates, we consider how the system will be fully funded. That is why I am happy to support the amendment in the name of my colleague Jeremy Balfour.

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.