Chamber and committees

Will the minister take a further intervention?

Will the minister take an intervention?

Will the minister take an intervention?

A well-run and effective welfare state stands to benefit not just the people who rely on it directly for support but wider society, as it allows many people to continue engaging in society even when times are tough, and times are just that—tough.

While the country begins to recover from the global pandemic, wrestles with inflation and deals with the humanitarian and supply-chain crises resulting from President Putin’s war in Europe, there has been and continues to be a tremendous amount of pressure on the people of this country, who turn to the welfare state to relieve some of that pressure on their and their families’ lives.

I take a moment to commend the front-line employees and agents of the DWP who, day in and day out, are working hard to ensure that people are supported by every system and lever that is available to them. Just a few weeks ago, I had the privilege of visiting one of the new Jobcentre Plus centres here in Edinburgh to see the joined-up thinking that is taking place. In debates such as this, it is sometimes easy to vilify the people on the front line. I urge all the speakers in the debate to minimise that kind of contribution.

Moving to the substance of the debate, I have a couple of points that I would like to raise. I have a feeling that many representations will be made about sanctions over the next few minutes that will not be strictly accurate. Sanctions will be painted as a regular excuse to deny help to people who need it by heartless agents of the state. However, that simply does not match up to reality. Sanctions are used infrequently and executed only after careful consideration.

In her opening speech, Ms Stewart asked for data. Let me give her some data from the Partick jobcentre, which is in the constituency that she represents and is also mentioned in the motion. According to DWP figures for that centre, no one was sanctioned between July 2019 and July 2020. We can therefore see that the handing out of a sanction is not something that is done liberally and without thought but rather a tool that is used in a targeted and thoughtful way.

It is also worth noting that the University of Glasgow study that is cited in the motion is yet to be published and is not specific to the UK. Rather, it has a much broader international focus, so we should be careful of mapping its findings directly on to the UK. I close by advising caution to people who would use that unpublished paper, which is not specific to the UK, simply to make political points. We should keep in mind that the way in which sanctions are portrayed in the media and by people who have their own political agenda is not always accurate, and that sanctions are, to use the language of the Scottish Government, a “targeted and proportionate measure”.

Will the minister acknowledge that, back in November last year, 0.88 per cent of those on universal credit were sanctioned? We are talking about less than 1 per cent, so it is not something that is being used willy-nilly.

If the Scottish Government was in charge of universal credit, would it simply get rid of all sanctions or would it amend them and do things in a different way?

I thank Sarah Boyack for securing this debate, and note the all-party support that it has received.

Like you, I am sure, Presiding Officer, I was given lots of advice when I arrived in this place—some of it positive, some of it less so. One of the points of advice that I was given very early on was to get involved in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in this Parliament and across the Commonwealth. That was a positive decision for me, as I have learned a great deal in the past six years from colleagues in other parts of the world. If I can give one bit of advice to any member who is not yet engaged in it, I would urge them to do so. We need members’ support, and I think that they will also benefit from it. We can learn lots from other countries and jurisdictions, but we can also pass on good practice that we have learned here.

As has been mentioned, last week, I and my two colleagues who have already spoken in this debate spent a couple of days on the Isle of Man, and it was interesting to talk to colleagues about the elected office fund, to which disabled people here in Scotland can apply for help to seek election to this Parliament or to local authorities. I think that we are the only jurisdiction within the Mediterranean branch that has such a fund, but I am pleased that quite a number of people from various Parliaments said that they are going to think about that, which will help people with disabilities at least to stand for election, even if they do not get elected.

In the brief time that I have, I want to reflect on two issues that stood out for me. The first is in regard to how we run ourselves in this Parliament. I think that, too often, we react or do things retrospectively rather than looking ahead to see what kind of needs we have. We are fortunate that this Parliament is accessible to most individuals with most disabilities. It was interesting to talk to people from another jurisdiction that thought about the issue of wheelchair access only after someone with a wheelchair had been elected. That sort of thing can often happen with regard to how we run ourselves and the practices and procedures around how we interact with each other. Perhaps we should, every five years, stop and collectively think about how open we are to all agendas and to people with disability.

The second thing that I found interesting was the reflection on digital technology and the hybrid system that we use in this Parliament. Again, I think that we would all agree that, during the pandemic, that was helpful, particularly for those who found it difficult to come to the city. However, a number of delegates from other Parliaments pointed out there is a danger that, if someone is not in the room, they are not making the decisions. Whatever the reason for someone needing to stay at home more--whether it is because of gender or disability—they can take part in debates and ask questions, but they are not in the room making the decisions. I think that we have to carefully reflect on how we are going to use hybrid technology so that we do not inadvertently exclude people from being here and that we do not get to the stage where people do not come because it is more complicated to get here because of a disability or family reasons. Yes, we need to give people flexibility and choice, but we do not want to exclude them inadvertently from doing taking part.

Absolutely, that is why we need to be a far more representative Parliament across different protected characteristics, and we need to work together on that.

In conclusion, I think that this motion explains where we want to go, and Commonwealth Day gives us an opportunity to reflect not only the past but, more importantly, to look to the future of how we can work together with parliamentarians across the world.

Does the member agree that it is often the third sector that provides support for people who have lost a child or who have had a child but are having some kind of mental health issues afterwards and that, unless we get proper funding for those third sector organisations, we are going to leave families behind?

Will the minister take an intervention?