Chamber and committees

Several of my questions on the Nationality and Borders Bill have been answered, but I want to say that I believe that it is a cruel and impractical bill that does not achieve what it sets out to achieve, even if we do not agree in the first place with what it is meant to achieve. It is important to put that on the record. I thank the panel for their answers.

Can you tell us a bit more about the mechanism that you used for the self-isolation support grant? Also, because you mentioned it, I will pick up on the point about housing and homelessness. Obviously, this week, we have heard about the 27 per cent increase in homelessness in Glasgow. The Government has said that that is partly due to the increased number of applications from refugees who have been granted leave to remain. Will you elaborate on why that would have had that sort of effect on the number of homeless applications?

I realise that those are two separate questions but, since you touched on the issue, I am keen to ask about it. I also have one further question in the area.

I have three short questions, and I will try to be brief. I put on record my thanks for the incredible work that Maryhill Integration Network is doing for the people it supports in Glasgow. It has highlighted that it is concerned to hear about Glasgow City Council withdrawing from the UK Government’s dispersal scheme, but I think that I have heard today that that might not be the case, so I seek clarification from Councillor Aitken before I ask my further two questions.

I did but, in the interests of time, I will save it for another day.

Yes, no problem. Thank you for that clarification.

You mentioned that some of the provision that local authorities put in place was on housing, particularly during the pandemic. The Government has said recently that the increase in homelessness applications in Glasgow was possibly because of an increase in applications from refugees who have been granted leave to remain. While you are on the subject of housing, will you elaborate on why that would have such an effect on the number of homelessness applications?

Can any of the panel members from Glasgow help with that?

Thank you for that lengthy and detailed answer. In the interests of time, there are a couple of points that I will follow up on outwith this session. I appreciate you putting that on the record.

An organisation called the Bridges Programmes contacted the committee ahead of today’s meeting and explained its concerns about a number of changes that were made during the pandemic that did not take into account minority groups in the way that they could have. We know that that is seen across minority groups. For example, it seems that consideration was not given to the experience of the people who were living in such accommodation.

How important is it that asylum seekers and refugees are included in the Covid-19 inquiry in Scotland? I direct that question to Councillor Aitken and Andrew Morrison.

Thank you, convener, for indulging me with a further question. I am keen to understand a bit about the support for women in the refugee and asylum-seeking community who are experiencing domestic violence. I note that there are concerns about the lack of clarity and the funding gaps. Could Pat Togher and Councillor Aitken set out their understanding of those issues and say what they can do to support women in those circumstances?

I put on record my thanks to Glasgow Women’s Aid and women’s aid organisations across the country for the work that they have done to support women this year and in many previous years.

I do, convener. I thank the minister and his officials for their answers. I am particularly reassured by the answers about the prioritisation of reviews for people whose circumstances change. It is helpful that you have put that on the record and I thank you for doing so.

I have a final question, but before I turn to that, I want to raise a point about talking down the work of the agency and the people who work in it. That is not how I characterise the problem. The issue is that the minister and his Government have promised since 2017 that there would be a significant divergence between the PIP regulations and the adult disability payment regulations. That was first promised a significant number of years ago, but we do not see a significant difference between the regulations. It is that delay that I and others take issue with. Our concern is about the Government’s direction of that, and not the delivery by the agency or the staff, who have worked hard, particularly during the pandemic, to deliver what they have delivered.

My final question is about the fact that the regulations do not contain anything about the transfer of people who are on DLA to the adult disability payment. Will the minister set out why that is not covered in the regulations? I think that SCOSS notes that it is forthcoming. Does the minister have a timescale available that he can set out today?

Too many disabled people are in poverty. Thousands have spent blood, sweat and tears trying to get the support that they need to live their lives, only to be told that they do not qualify for it or that it is being cut.

The regulations in front of us could have changed that. We could have consigned to history degrading and arbitrary measures, such as the 20m and 50 per cent rules. We could have developed indicators that reflect the real experience of disabled people and the support that they need. We could have been voting on rates of payment that reflect the real costs of living for disabled people, but we are not, and I cannot mask my disappointment.

None of the regulations in front of us change who is eligible or for how much. They do not address problems with the descriptors. They replicate the PIP rules. Most disappointing of all, they miss an opportunity to recast the rules on something that could properly have addressed disabled people’s poverty.

In 2017, in response to Scottish Labour’s ask for assurances that the new system would be ambitious and would not have the same effect as the PIP rules, the then cabinet secretary replied that

“the Scottish Government does not intend to replicate the UK Government legislation in our social security … as will be clear from our actions, our approach will be very different.”

Five years later, we are asked to vote for underwhelming rules and trust that something better is coming. Disabled people have already waited for years on a promise that the regulations do not deliver. Every day they wait is a day that we all lose out on their potential, because poverty holds people back.

Despite our disappointment and because of the need to not delay this further, Scottish Labour will vote for the regulations, but I would like the record to show that we are voting for the regulations because disabled people have waited long enough, so they must proceed. We believe that the current PIP is so appalling that we will not block an attempt, however unimaginative or unambitious, to improve it and we will make sure that the promises that this Government made to disabled people in 2017 will not be broken or delayed a minute longer.