Seòmar agus comataidhean

Today, we have with us in the public gallery care workers who are bringing the Scottish Trades Union Congress missing millions campaign to Parliament. Can the Government hear the workers outside, and answer them: does the Scottish Government support the STUC’s missing millions campaign, and will the Government ever deliver for our essential care workers?

I am extremely happy to help out Jeremy Balfour. This will be an investment in our young people, which, in turn, will be an investment in our society, and there is clear evidence that what we gain from doing that will be far more than the cost will ever be.

The wealthiest in our society seem to gain the most, currently. A country that operates in that way only further ingrains inequality, and the consequences of that—Jeremy Balfour might want to listen to this—will be felt for generations to come and cost the country for generations. I do not want that to happen, and I believe that most members in the chamber do not want that, either.

Surely the fact that we are still talking about austerity in 2024—a full 14 years after that short-sighted economic strategy began—says a lot about the clear fact that it simply does not work. As I have said, I am sure that the vast majority of us in the Parliament—certainly Labour members—agree that we do not want policies that reflect inequality in our society.

The motion mentions devolution, as my colleague Paul O’Kane has said. More devolution is, of course, welcome, but we must use the powers that we have in a timely manner, and it is the responsibility of Opposition parties to hold the Government to account on its record.

We recently learned, following freedom of information requests from my colleague Paul O’Kane, that 116 people in Scotland died while waiting for their adult disability payment to be approved. Some of the same problems are associated with the callous disinterest of the Department for Work and Pensions system. We should all stand up and say that that is absolutely unacceptable. I am sure that Government members will agree that the whole point of retrieving such powers was to counteract that flawed approach, so we must all be vigilant in ensuring that we raise any issues that come to us.

We must do better with all our legislative powers and strive to maintain respect for social security. Without that, it does not take much for opportunistic politicians across the different Parliaments to come in and degrade the entire system. That has been happening throughout my entire adult life, and we should not imagine that we are any less prone to it in Scotland.

I will play my role in pushing any new Labour Government to invest in our social security system. My front-bench colleague mentioned many ways in which we will do that through a whole-system approach and by using the new deal for workers to maximise what we can do for working people in Scotland and across the rest of the UK.

Labour has a very strong record of lifting people, including children, out of poverty, and I have every confidence that it will do so again. I have always played my part in shaping the Labour movement, and I will continue to do so.

I say again that we must all work together where we can to ensure that we fight inequality. When we see austerity—

I agree that we must reverse the two-child benefit cap; indeed, I am on record as supporting that position. The policy has, quite clearly, led to misery and distress for many families, and it strikes me as exactly the kind of cruel policy designed to grab tabloid headlines that has become the Conservative Government’s trademark. My view is now on the record again.

Our welfare system should not be designed to discourage families and victimise children before they even have a foothold in life. The entire purpose of the welfare state was to create a safety net from the cradle to the grave, but that concept has been continuously degraded year after year, while the wealthiest in our society have amassed yet more wealth.

—we must ensure that we work together to change it.

I thank the minister for her statement and agree that it is right that we proceed carefully and compassionately. Given that Dr Cass’s report is founded on strong scientific evidence, and given that there were interim recommendations, we in the Parliament saw what was coming to us. Why will the Government not be clearer in outlining its position on whether it believes that all the recommendations ought to be implemented? Does the minister believe that sitting on the fence to protect the stability of the Bute house agreement is a tenable position?

Further to that—

The Parliament is aware that, this morning, Sandyford clinic announced that it will no longer prescribe puberty blockers to 16 and 17-year-olds—a key recommendation in the recently released Cass review. Members in the chamber should know whether that decision has been taken as a result of any Scottish Government intervention and whether the First Minister and his Government are supportive of a wider acceptance of the recommendations in the Cass review. After the poor and woeful answers that we received yesterday in the chamber, will the First Minister intervene, where the health secretary has not, and ensure that a statement is made in the Parliament to clarify the Government’s confused position and to allow members an opportunity to question the Government on this very important matter?

I begin by thanking my colleague Pauline McNeill for bringing this important debate to the chamber. I know that she is a strong campaigner on this matter and will continue to stand firmly on the side of prison officers in Scotland.

I was privileged to have the opportunity to meet POA Scotland members in the Parliament just last month, and we had some good discussions about what challenges are presented to prison officers and service delivery as a result of the retirement age remaining at 68.

In setting out my position today, I start by firmly reiterating my support for this campaign, as I did to the POA Scotland members. As we have heard from across the chamber, 68 is too late. UK Government ministers must act, and Scottish Government ministers must redouble any efforts that they are currently making to deliver the much-needed change in retirement age to 60.

As the POA parliamentary briefing ahead of today’s debate states,

“Prison officers are manifestly a ‘uniformed service’”,

and, as such, it is clear to me that they should be treated in the same manner as other uniformed services and see their retirement age return to 60 without detriment to their pension. Indeed, the briefing that we have all read acknowledges that that was previously the case and that it is due to a 2011 review that omitted prison officers from the definition of uniformed services that they are now expected to work until they are 68.

Prison officers have explained to me the mental and physical challenges associated with working in the prison setting until that age. Other members have described those well, and I fully agree that the situation is wholly unacceptable and untenable. In its report, the POA highlights that more than 90 per cent of those surveyed believe that 68 is too late and that more than 95 per cent have concerns that they will not be able to work until they are 68 due to the physical and mental demands that are associated with this extremely challenging job.

Across the chamber, we all agree that this is no way to treat our prison officers, who deliver an absolutely essential service, that they must be treated with dignity as they reach their retirement age, and that this challenging profession deserves to be treated in the same way as other uniformed professions.

It cannot be forgotten that, despite the fact that they are described as managed environments, prisons can often be violent places, as we have heard, and officers are regularly expected to attend violent incidents. By their own admission, prison officers are rightly concerned about their ability to provide physical support to younger colleagues if they encounter such a situation as they approach their 60s, and they have concerns for their safety and the safety of others.

We hope that the UK Government will recognise that the current position poses a risk to the physical and mental health of the officers and others. It must listen to those who are lobbying it and take action, and I hope that the Scottish Government will continue to lobby it as constructively as it can in order to make progress on the issue.

Again, I thank Pauline McNeill for bringing the debate to the chamber and all members who supported the motion.

Not at this point.

I urge the public to see the motion from the Conservatives today not as a call in favour of freedom of speech or expression but rather as a further attempt to exploit those who are often the most vulnerable in our community. I maintain that there is nothing positive to say about the SNP’s implementation of the 2021 act, but the Conservatives’ approach is, in my view, opportunistic, and I am confident that the public will see that.

Of course.