Seòmar agus comataidhean

I thank the committee, the clerks and witnesses for the stage 1 report, and I thank members for their contributions in the debate. I did not sit on the committee, so I have found this a very interesting debate. I know from my colleagues Paul O’Kane and Katy Clark that this was a technical and very detailed piece of work, but the way that it has to progress and many of the technicalities are very meaningful to our constituents on the ground and to the people who rely on social security.

We all know that social security provision is the cornerstone of a society that cares. Of real interest to me is that one in four children in Scotland currently grows up in poverty. We need solutions to ensure that children have a fair chance to live free from hardship and with opportunities. We need a good social security system to allow children and families to have an opportunity to flourish. If we can do that for children and families, the ripple will help people right across society. I hope—and I think that I have heard today—that all members agree that we may all rely on the welfare state at some point in our lives. That is an important contribution to the debate.

As someone who did not sit on the committee, it was worth my while to review the general aims of the bill. It will enhance the Scottish system of social security, including by improving the experience of people using the services that are provided by Social Security Scotland, delivering increased efficiency and value for money, implementing the findings of an independent review into the remit and operation of the Scottish Commission on Social Security and revoking the emergency provision from the 2018 act that was used at the height of Covid. Those are all absolutely essential in order for us to move forward with social security provision in Scotland.

The Scottish Government stated that the aim of the legislation is:

“To create efficiencies and enhance the administration of the Scottish social security system, with a focus on measures to improve the client experience and to deliver value for money.”

That is what members have discussed in the debate. As we heard from my colleague Paul O’Kane in his contribution, Scottish Labour broadly supports the aims of the bill, particularly the move to ensure that users of the service have a better experience and that the service is welcoming and is provided in a way that meets users’ needs. We know that, if we can support and help families to find ways out of poverty, and provide social security systems with a compassionate, dignified and person-centred approach, people will live in dignity and be free from poverty.

That is certainly reflected in the committee report, particularly in point 239, towards the end of the report. Many of the committee’s points demonstrate how changes to the system that initially appear to be straightforward could have unintended consequences for the people whom the system is there to serve. A couple of members mentioned that that has made it difficult to ensure that social security principles are upheld throughout the bill.

The committee looks forward to receiving further reassurances that fairness, dignity and respect are at the heart of the bill’s provisions. I know that the cabinet secretary mentioned that in her opening remarks.

We know that there are delays in the system. The Government has been hesitant to take on powers over the past few years, and some costs in setting up the provision of services rather than the actual provision for individual clients have spiralled. I would welcome some reflections on that from the cabinet secretary in her summing up.

Time is very short. I thank members for their contributions. In particular, I support making the child payment a permanent benefit, as members have spoken about.

It is welcome that this debate has been brought to the Parliament in Government time. Discussing the NHS and its future is of critical importance, and we must all work together to deliver an NHS that is fit for the 21st century. Having said that, we absolutely cannot ignore the context in which we have the debate, nor the challenges that our NHS faces in 2024. The SNP wants all parties to participate in the discussion about our health service’s future, which is welcome. However, for that to happen, the SNP must recognise its role in causing the seriously challenging position in which the NHS finds itself. Acknowledging one’s own mistakes is a key factor. Acknowledging the challenges resulting from Governments’ own approaches is a key factor.

I know that some SNP back benchers like to discuss the Labour Party, and I, too, enjoy discussing the future Labour Government. However, today’s Labour amendment rightly takes the opportunity to set out what is happening in Scotland. We now have one in seven Scots on waiting lists. I must ask the Government and its back benchers to realise what is happening in Scotland. I do not say that to have a go at the Government; I say it because, to go back to my earlier point, we need to acknowledge the challenges in some of the approaches that have been taken. There are 32 per cent more private hospital admissions compared with 2019, and spending overall per person has reduced.

The member at the back was extremely critical of spending, but we know that, in the early years of the SNP Government, John Swinney did not pass on consequentials from a Labour Government to the Scottish NHS.

I will give way to Mr Whitfield.

The member knows that I love a good Government back bencher, and that I think that it is important for members to challenge their own front benches. However, the member must understand that the NHS will deliver better with a Labour Government—there is absolutely no doubt about that.

To get back to Scotland, we must acknowledge that having patients using the private sector—those who can afford to do so—is creating a two-tier system. Those who can pay can get treatment, and those who cannot are stuck in pain. We know that the Government books beds in the private sector. I say that to be honest about the issue so that we can talk about how we move away from it. A and E waiting times remain stubbornly high, and the SNP does not have a clear plan for how to bring them down. Those are long-term issues that have arisen and are becoming worse. If the Government truly wants to work with us, it needs to be honest about those issues. I therefore hope that it will support the Labour Party amendment so that we can work together.

I am conscious of time, so I will move on. I believe that the cabinet secretary wants to look to the future and that he honestly wants to work together with us on the issue. My view is that health inequalities, which are divisive in nature, are one of the greatest challenges that we face, and I know that the cabinet secretary accepts that point.

From the uptake of cervical screening services to deaths from alcohol and drugs, from childhood obesity to life expectancy, in Scotland, a person’s postcode still determines their health outcomes in 2024. It is an absolute disgrace. For far too many people, a high number of years of poor health followed by early death is a reality. That is a serious issue, and tinkering around the edges will not resolve it.

We need to bring health services to our most deprived and vulnerable communities. I hope that the cabinet secretary will work with us on that. We need to roll out screening at home in areas where uptake is low. We also must invest in alcohol and drug partnerships, and it is excellent to have the minister who has responsibility for that with us. I know that she, too, wants to make sure that we have those services on the ground so that we can challenge some of the issues that face our communities.

We have to invest in health outcomes for our children by extending access to free school meals to tackle hunger and improving opportunities to take up sport. We need to do that by properly supporting our councils. It is essential that we fund local government.

We need to work cross portfolio to make sure that those things can happen.

To ask the Scottish Government how it plans to reduce any health inequalities, specifically in relation to the uptake of cervical cancer screening appointments. (S6O-03496)

As we know from the most recent annual statistics, there was inequality of more than 10 percentage points difference between uptake in the most deprived and least deprived areas. That stark and divisive inequality serves as a reminder that under this Government, sadly, our postcode can still determine our health outcomes. Can the minister update the Parliament on when we might expect wider roll-out of self-sampling—in particular, in communities where uptake of existing screening services is lower?

I appreciate Meghan Gallacher’s contribution. I, too, have had a great deal of discussion with the minister and Gillian Mackay and I understand the arguments for and against signage. We note that health boards have the option to install signage and it may be that they understand their particular premises best, so, on balance, we are content that that will be the best option. We will vote against amendment 51, but we understand why it was lodged for debate at stage 2.

I thank Rachael Hamilton for starting the debate. Obviously, we have considered the matter at length, given that it was spoken about in the committee’s evidence sessions. We have come to the conclusion that we will support the Government in its position, mainly because responses indicated the matter is important and that a distance of 200m will mean that we will have, for women in Scotland, safe access zones in particular premises, which might be helpful in the future. We are content to continue to support the Government so we will not support amendment 43.

I absolutely accept Rachael Hamilton’s point. We have gone back and forward with people who consulted with the committee. I accept the member’s position, but we have to decide on the matter. At this stage, we have decided that we would be content with 200m.

I will briefly set out Scottish Labour’s position on this grouping. We believe that Gillian Mackay has engaged right across the parties and we thank her for listening to our views. My remarks today clarify our position on her amendments. In particular, we believe that amendment 34 is good and will support it.

It has been helpful to hear Mr Cole-Hamilton speak about his amendments, because we were a bit unclear about the idea of removing section 8. We did not support that amendment all, as we thought that it was unreasonable, but it will be useful to hear the minister’s response.

We thank everybody for contributing to the discussion on the section.