Seòmar agus comataidhean

I thank the witnesses for their submissions and for their contribution to this morning’s discussion, which has been really helpful, as my colleagues have said.

I want to dig a little more into what the minimum core means for specific groups of people. Notwithstanding the significant gaps in data that you have all highlighted and that we really need to address—I hope that we can do that—it is clear from the data that exists that there are problems with the minimum core, particularly in relation to disabled people. For example, the SHRC produced a paper in the summer on the impact of Covid restrictions and the social care system on disabled people’s rights, with some people living entire days, weeks and months in one chair. The Fraser of Allander Institute has recently done very good research on the minimum core of rights of people with a learning disability. In addition, of course, there is the significant work that is being done on the fact that so many children live in poverty and do not have an adequate standard of living.

Will you say a little more about the details of the minimum core? What data have you used to tell that story and show how important it is? What does the minimum core mean for addressing some of the gaps, particularly in relation to how we use public spend on social security and how we see the care service working, particularly for women or disabled people?

Thank you for the opportunity, convener. Cabinet secretary, you are right to highlight the perfect storm that people are facing; I am genuinely terrified for families and what they will be able to do about fuel poverty, particularly with the cut to universal credit. It is a shame, given that we could have had a publicly owned energy firm that could have addressed some of that issue.

I will focus on two of the groups that you identified—children and disabled people—in relation to poverty. First, with regard to the Scottish child payment, we heard evidence last week that social security will have to do the “heavy lifting” if we are to meet the targets on tackling child poverty. I understand that the £20 cut to universal credit is catastrophic and should not go ahead; however, the targets were set without caveat by the Parliament, which means that we need to look across everything that we do here to find ways of meeting them. Will you commit to doing all that you can to meet the child poverty targets, regardless of what is happening elsewhere? Our view is that the Scottish child payment needs to be doubled and doubled again next year. Can you set out how you intend to meet the targets?

Secondly, have you made an assessment of the extra costs of living as a disabled person, so that we can begin to address some of the poverty that disabled people face?

I have a follow-up question. I appreciate that it will take substantial staffing resources to deliver the payments as they stand, but they would be delivered with exactly the same eligibility and in exactly the same amounts as the reserved benefits. For example, in response to the ADP consultation, the Government said that it favours largely replicating the eligibility criteria as they exist in PIP, for reasons of staffing resource. How many extra staff would you need in order to start moving on eligibility and adequacy for adult disability payment? Do you believe that the current criteria that are used for PIP are fair, and what is your view on the 20m rule?

The cabinet secretary will be aware that, for some time, thousands of disabled people across Scotland have been unable to access homes and have been considered to be, in effect, homeless. In the Glasgow region, the council is building accessible houses on a very small scale—only about 8 per cent are accessible. The current Government target is 10 per cent, but that is not in legislation. Given the huge variability across the country in relation to those builds, and the significant need for accessible housing for disabled people, will the Government consider making that a statutory target?

I congratulate you on your post, cabinet secretary, and welcome you to the committee. As you will be aware, various policies have had to be adjusted due to pressure on Social Security Scotland. How many additional staff and what additional resources does Social Security Scotland need to deliver the payments for which it has responsibility? What resources does the Government anticipate the agency will need once all passported benefits have been transferred from the DWP?

I echo what my colleague Karen Adam said about the strength and power of Dr Moon’s testimony. It is probably one of the most powerful statements that I have heard in a long time, particularly in relation to young people and the need to get on and ban the practice and not necessarily focus too much more on time and research.

You will forgive my being sceptical about the UK Government’s approach on the issue. A lot of evidence suggests that there is much that we in Scotland can do within the devolved capabilities and responsibilities of the Parliament, which I am pleased to hear. On the points that we have heard about regulation, in particular in relation to training and the need for us to get that right, do we need, ultimately, to wait for reserved legislation on that or is there something that we can do in Scotland to address areas that you mentioned?

Thank you very much for that. It was really helpful—particularly your analysis of the human rights that are at play here. It is really important that we have a solid understanding of those if we are going to take a human rights-based approach to the work, which I hope and believe we will.

I have a question that sort of follows on from some of the conversation. Forgive me if it sounds as though we are labouring the point, but it is important that we get this right, for all the reasons that we have rehearsed.

In the SHRC submission, you say that the legislation should be drawn up to ensure that there is no interference with religious thought or access to non-judgmental support such as has just been described. Can you tell us a bit more specifically about how that would be drafted? For example, would it be a lift and lay from the Victoria legislation, or would it be something different? Is there something missing from that legislation or something that should be amended?

The equalities commission in Victoria has a specific role in the Victoria legislation to mediate, intervene and investigate. Could that work in Scotland? If so, who could play that role?

Thank you. I apologise for skipping ahead to the international stuff. I realised that I stopped the conversation on Pam Gosal’s question—I apologise for that.

My question has almost been answered by what has been said. In its submission, the Equality and Human Rights Commission talks about a

“harms-based approach, which disregards benign intent”.

Given what we have heard about the rapporteur’s definition of harm and the three prongs, we could make an assumption, but how would you define “benign intent”?

I thank the witnesses for the information that they have provided, which has been really helpful. Both of the sessions this morning have been excellent.

My questions are on the same issue that we have been discussing. We heard earlier that affirmative practice is about non-judgmental practice, very much in the circumstances that you have just described around therapy settings. Are the current training and support for therapists adequate to ensure that people can provide that non-judgmental approach? If the training is adequate, that is great. If not, what intervention is needed to help us to move in that direction, given the importance that you have ascribed to the memorandum of understanding and training practices?