Chamber and committees

I am pleased to take part in this debate, particularly because it is about the Scottish Government’s success in creating a social security system with dignity and respect at its heart. I know that we have heard that phrase before and that we have heard it a lot here today, but that is the founding principle of our system and it is worth repeating. Of those who have had contact with Social Security Scotland, 90 per cent have said that their experience of staff was good or very good and 93 per cent felt that they were treated with kindness.

Of course, things are not perfect and there are wrinkles to iron out. No one is saying that the system is perfect, but I know from constituent feedback that people see it as a breath of fresh air compared to the shambles and frequent trauma of dealing with the UK Government’s DWP.

It is fair to say that my constituency of Strathkelvin and Bearsden is not the most deprived in Scotland, but there are disadvantaged areas, as there are in every constituency, and, as in every constituency, food banks are a necessary evil for people who are pushed into poverty, not least by the crushing, Tory-made cost of living crisis.

In a relatively small local authority area of East Dunbartonshire, 3,780 children are benefiting from the game-changing and unique Scottish child payment, which is not available anywhere else in the UK, 1,835 people receive adult disability payment and 1,235 children receive child disability payment. I could go on with statistics, but it is clear that those benefits are helping the most vulnerable in society, which is their human right.

Ninety thousand children are being lifted out of poverty with the child payment. Devolution has shown how Scotland can begin to deliver a fairer social security system, but sadly, as we know, the UK Government still holds most of our welfare powers. Just think what more we could do with the full powers of an independent country. Despite mitigating the worst of the UK Government cuts and the horrendous policies that we have heard about today, such as the two-child cap, the rape clause, the bedroom tax and more, to the tune of more than £711 million, we have managed to lift 90,000 children out of poverty this year. However, at a time when the Scottish Government uses its limited powers to put money in people’s pockets, Westminster takes it away.

Small independent European states prove that a strong social security system means a fairer, more equal nation. If they can do it, why not Scotland? There simply is no logical reason. An independent Scotland could undo the damage of the union by removing the two-child limit and scrapping the rape clause. We would remove the benefit cap and bedroom tax, and replace universal credit budgeting loans with grants, so that families would not have to wait five weeks for the first payments.

We would end the current benefit sanctions regime and support people into sustainable employment, and we would end the unfair young parent penalty. We could provide more support for those who are starting work, such as up-front childcare and travel costs, and we could improve support for unpaid carers. We would halt changes to the delivery of existing reserved health and disability benefits.

The list of progressive interventions makes it clear that Scotland could do better with independence, as it would not have to mitigate the disastrous UK Government policies. With the full powers of an independent state, the Scottish Government would have greater freedom to eliminate poverty in our communities. With independence, people in Scotland could be guaranteed the right to a decent income that is set at a level to ensure that everyone could have a dignified quality of life. That could be achieved through paid work, affordable services and, when needed, targeted social security support.

The minimum income guarantee, which was well articulated by my colleague John Mason, would lay the foundations for future progressive Governments in Scotland to consider developing a universal basic income. We are a small nation and we can be progressive to bring about change and create wellbeing for the people who live here.

As has been mentioned, unclaimed benefits such as pension credit are a problem that should and could be resolved. I agree that we should be more proactive to encourage people to claim what they are entitled to.

It is clear that the UK Government does not see the value of social security—and neither does Jeremy Balfour, it seems, from his speech. The Conservatives are blind to the misery that their policies and cuts have created throughout Scotland.

Many folk who are struggling to get by see an independent Scotland as a light at the end of the tunnel. That is why we choose to follow that light, and we will not be held back by the Tories or Labour, who would keep us tied to Westminster. We deserve better. The people of Scotland know that having a decent standard of living, a warm home and the ability to put food on the table is their human right. With independence, we can give them that basic human right.

Will Neil Bibby take an intervention?

I want to ask about floating trial diets. I think that it is generally accepted that they are not a good thing. They bring uncertainty and cause great distress to complainers, and the Lord Advocate has said that she would like them to disappear. Will the sexual offences court alleviate that problem? Is it at all possible to legislate to end them, or is that best left to the independent judiciary?

I completely appreciate that. What I am trying to do is to break the impasse in the problem with convictions in sexual crime cases compared with the rest of cases. Rape Crisis is concerned that the bill will make it harder to convict because of the jury configuration, which will not help victims.

I totally understand.

Conviction rates for rape are the lowest of any crime type; indeed, I think that the Lord Advocate said that the conviction rate for single-complainer rape cases is 20 per cent, which is quite shocking. Cabinet secretary, you will know that Rape Crisis is very concerned about the two-thirds majority in a 12-person jury and feels that it would make it harder to get convictions, which is clearly the last thing that we want.

Before we go on to talk about the new sexual offences court, I have what is quite a left-field question, but I am going to ask it anyway. We are talking about jury balance and sizes. Do you envisage the Government ever making provision for a different configuration of or different criteria for juries in that court, to try to balance out Rape Crisis’s fears in relation to corroboration and all the rest of it? Given that we are setting up a new court anyway, is that something that the Government would ever consider?

It is an absolute pleasure to lead this debate on recognising deafblindness as a distinct condition and specialist disability in Scotland. I am privileged to have Deafblind Scotland’s headquarters in Lenzie, in my constituency—in fact, it is about one mile from my house. It is a fantastic organisation, with a caring professional team led by chief executive Isabella Goldie. I am delighted to say that Isabella and many of her team and service users have made the journey from all over Scotland to be here in the chamber, and I welcome them warmly to the public gallery.

Last summer, I had the pleasure of opening a sensory path leading to the organisation’s state-of-the-art building, and plans are under way to construct a sensory garden. The innovation and caring never stop at Deafblind Scotland, and I congratulate it at every level.

Few of us can even imagine experiencing the loss of one sense, never mind two. Since being elected in 2016, I have met inspirational people at Deafblind Scotland who have lost those senses—some from birth and others gradually. Some are blind, some are deaf, and some are deaf and blind. They are brave and strong and do not complain. However, I believe that we, as a Government, have a responsibility to make life more bearable for them in whatever way we can. Tonight, I will mention a few things that we can and should do.

Currently, Scotland lacks a legal definition for deafblindness, which would be a crucial step towards recognising and diagnosing dual sensory loss at the earliest point and addressing the unique challenges that are faced by the deafblind community. Lack of a definition can lead to significant inequalities in access to education, employment, healthcare and public and social services, and it can have a hugely negative effect on a person’s cultural and emotional wellbeing.

The impact of the condition can be devastating, resulting in profound levels of social isolation and resulting loneliness. Addressing that demands specialist interdisciplinary approaches and skilled early intervention when it comes to diagnosis. The World Health Organization, alongside other significant health systems in countries, has adopted the Nordic definition of deafblindness, part of which states:

“Deafblindness is a combined vision and hearing impairment of such severity that it is hard for the impaired senses to compensate for each other. Thus, deafblindness is a distinct disability.

To varying degrees, deafblindness limits activities and restricts full participation in society. It affects social life, communication, access to information, orientation and the ability to move around freely and safely.”

I believe that Scotland should formally adopt the Nordic definition of deafblindness to pave the way for a more inclusive and equitable future for deafblind people. It would enable Scotland to uphold and enshrine the human rights of people who are living with dual sensory loss now and in future. They have the right to live, learn, work and engage in social activities in an environment that respects their unique needs and promotes their autonomy.

I congratulate the cross-party group on deafness on all that it has done in working towards Scotland adopting the Nordic definition of deafblindness. That is a perfect example of a cross-party group working to achieve something that would have a lifelong benefit for the more than 34,000 people who it is estimated live with the condition in Scotland alone. Sadly, that number is set to rise in line with an ageing population.

I will highlight Julie’s case, with her permission. Julie lives with Usher syndrome and was diagnosed as dual sensory impaired later in life. She is a teacher working and living in Orkney and she is also a young mother. Deafblind Scotland supports her remotely. She said:

“I’ve experienced how essential it is for deafblind people to receive specific support. I grew up as a deaf person but I started losing my eyesight in my late teens.

Suddenly I couldn’t use my eyesight to help me manage my deafness and when I was given advice for my sight loss, the advice relied on me being able to hear well.? I felt like I was on my own, trying to learn how to cope, work, and lead a fulfilling life.

With this declaration, we can develop a world-class system that integrates knowledge of both impairments for tailored, useful support. This will reduce isolation and increase life satisfaction for so many of us.”

Nothing that I could say here tonight could illustrate more powerfully than Julie’s story why deafblindness should be recognised as a distinct disability.

Another issue that I have raised several times in the chamber is that of free travel for deafblind companions. There is no national standard fare structure for communicators to accompany deafblind passengers on trains, which makes travel impossible. That is another basic human right that most of us take for granted. I understand that travel is free on some routes but chargeable on others, which leads to geographical inequalities and confusion among rail staff. Free travel for companions would open up a whole new world of freedom for deafblind people. I have had encouraging replies from ministers when I have raised the matter previously, and I hope that it is something that we could deliver sooner rather than later.

Communicators open up a whole new world, acting as the eyes and ears of a deafblind person. Theirs is a highly skilled role that involves many years of training. Sadly, however, the remuneration is poor, which makes recruitment very difficult. I know that finances are tighter than ever these days, but I hope that the issue can be addressed in future budgetary planning in social care.

I hope that tonight’s debate shines a light on some of the things that we could do to help our deafblind community. Let the debate be a turning point in doing that by recognising and supporting this distinct disability. It is the very least that we can do for members of the deafblind community.

I look forward to hearing members’ contributions from across the chamber. I again thank the Deafblind Scotland team and users for coming to the public gallery tonight.

I will go back to conviction rates. Your submission says:

“if the Scottish Government wishes to increase the convictions . . . we simply ask, what is the correct conviction rate?”

You quote someone called Tommy Ross KC, who said that

“the correct conviction rate is the number of cases that are proved beyond a reasonable doubt. I believe we are achieving that at present.”

Do you think that a 20 per cent conviction rate for single rape complainers is acceptable?

Does that have anything to do with the legal profession wanting to carry on without any changes?

Good morning, Mr Brown. I go back to the first question that you answered. You admitted that there is a lack of diversity in the profession. Your submission says:

“Judges are picked from a very small section of society: they are all middle-aged, ... predominately male, often privately-educated and almost exclusively members of the Faculty of Advocates.”

That sounds like an old boys club to me. Does that not say a lot about the profession?