Seòmar agus comataidhean

I begin by thanking Evelyn Tweed for raising this issue in the chamber. We have discussed social security on many occasions, but I thank her for making very important points about stigma and about people’s rights and their entitlement to social security.

I listened carefully to the previous speakers and was particularly pleased to hear Christine Grahame’s contribution about entitlement and her point that people should know what their entitlement is.

Research evidence shows that stigma around social security is keenly felt and creates powerful barriers to accessing entitlements. The May 2024 report from the Get Heard Scotland citizens panel on the impact of stigma on benefit uptake found that uncertainty about eligibility and entitlement played into fears about talking with family and friends and the wider community about social security, and that it definitely stopped people even considering whether they might be entitled to something that would improve their quality of life.

Most panellists in that research agreed that stigma had become worse because of austerity, the UK Government’s welfare reforms and the cost of living crisis. I am sure that we know from our constituents that, when people feel that the language around that is negative, that hinders or stops them coming forward to receive what they are entitled to.

I am glad that the panellists largely agreed that, although not perfect, dealing with Social Security Scotland is a far less stigmatising experience. We should all be pleased about that. However, I am interested in hearing the minister’s remarks about how the Government will ensure that we increase the uptake of benefits because, despite that kinder approach, we need action on uptake, as other members have mentioned.

We know that there have been reports that the system is sluggish or not always straightforward and that there are various hurdles. As the motion states, many benefits remain unclaimed in Scotland. I am sure that the kinder approach shows that the minister and the Government want to ensure that people take up their entitlement.

I will pick up on the point about the economic reality for many of our fellow citizens, concentrating the last part of my contribution on children in Scotland. We know that a quarter of children in Scotland are growing up in poverty and that we need solutions to ensure that children have a fair chance of a life free from hardship and with opportunities.

To do that, we need a good social security system to allow children and families the opportunity to flourish. If we can do that for children and families, the ripple will help right across society, which is so important. That is why we must strive to ensure that people know that the welfare state is there for everyone in their time of need. When we support and help families to find ways out of poverty, and when we provide a social security system that is based on compassion, dignity and a person-centred approach, the benefits are multiplied, and they apply to everyone in our society.

I thank Evelyn Tweed for the mention of third sector organisations in her motion. Whenever they can, those organisations maximise people’s understanding of and opportunity to access the benefits system. Other members will know from speaking with constituents that Citizens Advice Scotland, Age UK and other organisations across the sector are praised by people for the help that they offer.

I thank members for their contributions to the debate. I know that everyone in the chamber wants stigma to be removed from people who require to access benefits and social security. I would really welcome the minister’s contribution on what the next steps will be to ensure that we maximise the entitlement uptake for everyone.

My question is in a similar vein to my colleague Foysol Choudhury’s question on the more likely lower vaccination rate in more deprived areas. I am interested in knowing whether the minister thinks that we could do more cross portfolio to ensure that uptake in those areas reaches the level that exists across the rest of Scotland.

The legislation has been acknowledged as being very good, but does anything else need to be in it to help us take things forward? Does anyone have a view on that?

I have one final question. Are people with self-directed support seen as having lower or moderate levels of needs? Can they dip in for things that might be seen as additional, such as a holiday? How does that sort of thing happen practically on the ground? Does it happen at all?

I was asked to talk a wee bit about unmet need—that has been raised in the discussion, which has been interesting. My question is about unmet need and eligibility, which involves a conflict in terms of how people live their best lives. Have any studies looked at the interplay between what someone is assessed to need and what the unmet need in the wider context is?

To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of any economic and social impact of there being no rail services between Ayr, Girvan and Stranraer since the line was closed in September 2023. (S6O-03567)

I, too, welcome the news that we can expect services to resume in July. However, businesses and commuters in those towns and the surrounding areas have suffered as a result of the disruption. A big problem has been the lack of affordable and reliable bus routes to pick up the strain when such events occur. Since 2007, more than 1,200 bus routes have been lost in Scotland and, in real terms, the cost of bus travel has increased.

A recent report by the Institute for Public Policy Research, “Wheels of change: Promoting fair and green transport in rural Scotland”, has called on the Scottish Government to identify, fund and champion the anchor towns and communities that would provide public services and transport hubs for people who live in rural areas. What action has been taken in that regard?

I appreciate Meghan Gallacher’s contribution on this matter at stages 2 and 3, because we have had a great deal of discussion of this matter. We in Scottish Labour fully understand the arguments for and against signage, but, on balance, we believe that the health boards have the option to install signage and that might be the best approach. I appreciate that Meghan Gallacher will not press the amendment, but I also appreciate the way that she has approached the issue.

I will speak briefly to the three amendments. In relation to amendment 3, I appreciate Meghan Gallacher’s contribution on filming, recording and sketching. We, in Scottish Labour, are sympathetic to the issue. Harrowing scenes outside premises have been broadcast over the past few years, and it is now so easy to do that on social media platforms. We understand how harrowing that is for patients and staff. However, it is helpful that the member will not press the amendment. After discussion with Gillian Mackay and the Government, we believe that specifying behaviours in the bill could cause problems, so I thank the member for her reasonableness.

On amendment 4, I appreciate Jeremy Balfour’s contribution at stage 2 and now at stage 3, which has given us additional time to discuss the important issue of the right of pastoral and chaplaincy services to conduct legitimate business. Providing that service is absolutely right, and chaplains must have confidence to do so.

In committee, we discussed the matter at length and considered it again and again. I also discussed the matter that we are speaking about with Gillian Mackay this week. In my view, and considering the bill as it is now drafted, I am confident that we would not criminalise anybody who was legitimately carrying out business or providing a service.

On amendment 5, I again thank Jeremy Balfour for his considered contribution. He is absolutely right that the balance of human rights is key to the legislation, and it is correct that we, as legislators, should consider that at every stage of the bill. Scottish Labour has a long history of supporting freedom of expression, and we understand that the bill asks us to balance that human right.

In addition, as I have said, we do not wish to have any single behaviours listed in the bill, and there was some discussion about that in relation to amendment 5. On balance, we believe that the legislation is written tightly and that prosecutors would assess whether behaviour constituted a breach, so we would not support amendment 5.

I thank everyone who has worked together to get the legislation to stage 3. As previous speakers have mentioned, the process has been respectful, for which I am really thankful. I thank the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee and members right across the chamber who have worked so closely together. It is also really important that I also thank all the people who gave evidence to the committee at stage 2.

I thank Gillian Mackay for working so closely with campaigners in order to bring to our Parliament something that we could move forward as legislation. As we have all said, Gillian Mackay has worked closely across party lines, which I hope will allow us to achieve the passing of the bill.

I thank Clare Haughey, who is the convener of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, for the stage 2 debate, which I believe was one of the best that I have been involved in during my time on the committee, as members showed a real willingness to express views and to work together to achieve an outcome that would allow the legislation to work in the interests of women who are seeking healthcare. It was clear that everyone took the matter very seriously.

Personally, I have been supportive of the introduction of safe access zones to protect women who are accessing abortion services. It has long been the view of my party that Scotland should pass the bill to ensure safe access to healthcare for women. It is right that we take all necessary steps to protect women who are accessing abortion services. I believe that the introduction of safe access zones will achieve that.

The truth is that access to abortion clinics is access to healthcare. If the bill is passed today, it will allow us to talk about that openly and to ensure that women who are facing intimidation do not have to do so. We can all understand that visiting a healthcare setting can be worrying and stressful for a variety of reasons, but we heard evidence during the committee stages that women who are accessing sexual health services—specifically, abortion services—can go through an extremely challenging and emotionally traumatic time. Women need to have safe access to the services and the advice that they require: I believe that the legislation will work to achieve that.

It is fair to say that the evidence that was given to the committee was honest and of good quality. I found it to be extremely helpful to hear people’s views, whether they were for or against safe access zones. That is an important point in relation to the feeling that has been mentioned in the stage 3 debate that it could be difficult to discuss such things. Professional guidance and the lived experience of people who have accessed services and of people who have been outside clinics gave me much to think about and will add to our work on getting the balance of the legislation correct.

There is so much to cover around the legislation in the short time that I have, but I want to mention that Scottish Labour supports the views on proportionality and legitimate aims. It has long been Scottish Labour’s view that any restriction of human rights that a bill introduces must be kept to an absolute minimum, and we are content that the bill achieves that—I mentioned that point in the stage 1 debate, but it is worth noting again.

In the very short time that I have left, I want to say that the stage 3 debate was helpful and that we are particularly keen to pick up on post-legislative scrutiny of the bill. I agree that robust post-legislative scrutiny will be important to understand how the legislation is working for the women who require access.