Seòmar agus comataidhean

In closing for Labour, I thank members for an important and interesting debate. There is real enthusiasm across the chamber for the work that Sarah Boyack has undertaken, which I thank her for. That enthusiasm is why I am confused as to why we cannot get the bill over the line at stage 1, as Patrick Harvie has mentioned.

Every member agrees that Sarah Boyack has been consistent in her approach, from the very early days following her election to the Parliament. Like others, I thank my Social Justice and Social Security Committee colleagues, who I am sure will allow me to say that we appreciated Sarah Boyack’s work and her passion for the bill. I thank the clerks and the witnesses who put in the hours and allowed us to understand and scrutinise the bill when it was presented to the committee.

As I set out in my opening remarks, Scottish Labour agrees with the general principles of the bill and will be supporting it at decision time. During the debate, we wanted to hear whether we could achieve some agreement to allow the bill to be passed at stage 1. I think that everyone agrees that setting out the definitions of wellbeing and sustainable development in legislation would not only improve policy coherence and public body guidance, but provide the structure and accountability that would help Scotland to contribute to the achieving of the UN sustainable development goals.

As other members have done, I thank my colleague Sarah Boyack for her ambition in and commitment to introducing the bill. A great deal of work has gone into the bill, and I commend her for her on-going dedication to protecting the environment, tackling poverty and promoting collective wellbeing. Scottish Labour agrees with the general principles of the bill and will support it at stage 1.

The integration into legislation of definitions of “wellbeing” and “sustainable development” will not only improve policy coherence and guidance for public bodies but provide structure and accountability that will contribute to Scotland’s progress towards achieving the United Nations sustainable development goals. More must be done to further embed wellbeing and sustainable development principles into public bodies’ decision making. It is clear that, too often, short-term priorities drive decision making over long-term sustainability.

The committee’s evidence sessions supported the value of creating statutory definitions and assisting public bodies to meet their wellbeing and sustainable development obligations. Evidence to the committee overwhelmingly supported the aims and ambitions of the bill. Indeed, organisations such as Oxfam have long backed calls for the bill and see it as a way of enhancing the national outcomes with decision making and delivery. They remain sceptical about whether non-legislative approaches will be sufficient to achieve sustainable development and wellbeing goals.

The Scottish Government has dismissed the bill, because it believes that its aims can already be achieved in the current policy landscape and that additional legislation would be unnecessary. However, despite what the minister said in his speech today, the Scottish Government has been promising a reformed and strengthened national performance framework for years. I believe that those promises were first made back in 2021, but we have yet to see them come to fruition. Instead, we are left with an outdated structure and legislation that is not delivering.

The current approach is clearly not working—that is our position—and the committee’s report found that the proposed legislation is not incompatible with any of the planned reforms to the national performance framework, yet the Government still will not support the bill.

Scottish Labour welcomes the ambition of the bill and the clear structure, guidance and accountability mechanisms that it would give to public bodies and other organisations. The fact that it complements the national performance framework should be welcomed, and the Government should view the bill as something that strengthens existing ambitions instead of something that is unnecessary.

The world has entered precarious times, with some world leaders denouncing the UN’s sustainable development goals. Setting out a clear framework that embeds the principles of sustainability and wellbeing into the heart of public bodies’ decision making can only help to ensure that poverty and inequality, the climate and the wellbeing of future generations are consistently at the forefront of decision making instead of being an afterthought. That can only be a good thing, which is why Scottish Labour will support the bill at decision time.

14:53

The critical point is that Sarah Boyack’s bill could give us the opportunity to action something—there has been very little action to date. We are talking about the fact that the policy landscape is incoherent. Sarah Boyack’s bill brought focus to the committee’s discussion on the issue. If she worked with the Government, we could reach a focused outcome.

The member is willing to work with the Government. She was disappointed about the lack of support for her bill but, when the Government said that it would lodge a similar bill, she could see that some joint work could be done. We can understand why she is so disappointed by the committee not agreeing to support her bill at stage 1 and by the fact that the Government will not be supporting the bill or even working with her to support it at decision time today.

I am aware of the time, so, in my remaining minutes, I will turn to the member in charge of the bill, Sarah Boyack, to say thank you from Scottish Labour. Members will know that she will be standing down at the next election. I thank her not just for her work on the bill but for her contribution to the Parliament over the many years that she has been here. From what we have heard today, colleagues agree with that sentiment, and there have been many kind words for Sarah Boyack in their contributions.

Sarah Boyack was elected to the new Scottish Parliament in 1999. She was Minister for Transport and the Environment in the Scottish Executive and went on to be Minister for Transport and Planning. She should be very proud that, during that time, she introduced one of Scottish Labour’s flagship policies, which was the free bus pass for people over 60 and disabled people. It is safe to say that Scottish Labour is proud to have had Sarah Boyack on our benches, whether in government or in opposition. I hope that, across the chamber, we can agree that the Parliament has benefited greatly from her ability to work cross-party with determination and a can-do attitude. [Applause.]

This is an important bill. Sarah Boyack has made important contributions on it in the chamber, and it will be unfortunate if it falls tonight. The important message is that this work must go on.

15:26

If we truly hope to co-ordinate housing support services with wider public services, including health services, we must recognise the vital role that occupational therapists play in assessing housing needs. However, that workforce faces growing demand, a lack of financial stability and very high vacancy rates. What is the Government doing to improve OT numbers across Scotland? Does it recognise that additional recruitment will improve not only health outcomes but the links with housing support for constituents?

In my south Scotland region, people in the NHS Ayrshire and Arran health board area are stuck waiting too long for ADHD and autistic spectrum disorder assessments. Although my constituents can often access support without the need for formal diagnosis, continued funding cuts for integration joint boards and the long-term decline of council budgets are placing all services under immense pressure. Does the minister recognise that such cuts only limit the amount of support that can be provided through local services? Does the Government have any plans to give people living with autism and ADHD something to be positive about, rather than cuts?

Thank you for that. It is quite helpful to get that information on the record. I had another question, which was on—

Navigating the system is a real issue for people, so thank you for those comments. Does anyone else want to comment, convener? I cannot see the witnesses.

Yes—that is fine. Thank you very much.

Good morning. I think that, with those really robust answers, my questions might have been answered, but I just want to ensure that there is nothing else to add. Will abolishing the two-child limit have a different impact on families compared with mitigating it? Is there anything in particular that the witnesses would want to raise in that respect?

I apologise that, when I am online, it is a wee bit tricky for me to see who wants to come in.

I know that the mitigation payments are not going ahead, but can the Scottish Government learn any lessons from that approach if, in future, it is looking at mitigating certain policies or at having different policies from UK social security policy? We have talked about the cliff edge, and we have some of that evidence on the record, but do the witnesses want to make any other points?