Seòmar agus comataidhean

I say well done to Paul Sweeney, not only for bringing the debate to Parliament but for the speech that he delivered, which was very moving.

Paul Sweeney was quite right to say that Marie Curie’s “Dying in Poverty in Scotland 2024” report is a crucial piece of research, and it is incumbent on all of us—as Elena Whitham rightly spelled out—to take notice of it. The issue is particularly important and topical at the moment, given the assisted dying debates that are on-going north and south of the border. Those debates have raised critical issues in relation not only to that particular ethical decision that we have to make, but to how compassionate our palliative care system is. For that reason alone, I find those debates incredibly interesting. They are also extremely important, because they raise the whole issue of palliative care.

I am glad that it is clear from what we have heard in recent weeks that there is cross-party agreement on how significant this issue is. There is clear acknowledgement that the report’s findings paint a disturbing picture of the lack of support that is available to some of the most disadvantaged in our society in their final moments of terminal illness.

The scale of the numbers is stark. The report found that, in parts of the Mid Scotland and Fife region, around one in five people died in end-of-life poverty. The fact that such a large proportion of people are not receiving support is a matter of concern to us all. I pay tribute to Fergus Ewing, who made an important point about how we might better address that. The report goes into considerable detail—forensic detail, in fact—on the wide variations between different demographic groups. The proportion of single parents of working age who die in end-of-life poverty is as high as four in 10.

As we are all aware, palliative care is predominantly administered by the charitable sector. I pay tribute to the work of the charities Marie Curie and Cancer Card, which provide such a comprehensive service that is so admired by the public to so many people in giving them peace of mind at the end of their lives.

I was aware of that statistic, but only because Mr Ewing raised the issue earlier this week when I was in the chamber. I was taken aback by that statistic, because it is very serious. It is one that should make us think very carefully about the way forward. As Mr Ewing has rightly pointed out, we cannot have that circumstance, because hospitals have to get on with so many other things. We must address the issue by ensuring that people who are at the end of their lives get better care than that which it is possible for them to get in hospitals. I am not taking anything away from the care that is provided in hospitals, but I think that we can do things better.

The Finance and Public Administration Committee, of which I am a member, has been looking closely at the economic consequences of Scotland’s ageing population, but the report that we are discussing today highlights the social challenges of the current situation. I pay tribute to my colleague Miles Briggs, who, with his proposed member’s bill on a right to palliative care, is trying to address a lot of the questions that Mr Sweeney flagged up. It is essential that we do something about that issue, and I give my full support to Miles Briggs. We must do this better. I am sure that the Deputy Presiding Officer, of all people, is conscious of that, as the member who introduced the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill.

I thank both Paul Sweeney and you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I might not always agree on some aspects of the debate, but I think that you have done a wonderful job in bringing that bill to Parliament.

I absolutely agree with what Mr Rennie is saying. Can he foresee us having a facility whereby some of the veterans who have the positive attitude that he described can help schools by inspiring that same positive attitude in many of our youngsters, who often find it difficult to know what their next step will be?

The Scottish Fiscal Commission forecast told us that social security spending was predicted to increase from £6.283 billion in 2024-25 to £6.861 billion in 2025-26. That is an increase of £578 million, whereas the cabinet secretary is saying that the uplift will be £800 million. That is a huge difference, so where on earth is the money coming from to pay for that uplift?

Although I was not involved at stages 1 and 2 of the bill, I have followed it with considerable interest. That is because, although the bill is overwhelmingly technical in nature, it has at its core really important principles about social security and how we address the enormous challenge of the rapidly increasing benefits bill, which, quite frankly, at the moment is unaffordable. The Scottish Fiscal Commission predictions show that we simply will not have the revenue, well into the future, to go on paying out on the same basis that we are now, which, of course, means that we face some very considerable policy decisions.

The cabinet secretary rightly emphasised, as all the other parties did, the need for a person-centred system that ensures dignity, fairness and respect, that is accessible and straightforward to use and that, importantly, has a thread of consistency. My colleague Jeremy Balfour has stressed throughout the whole process the need to ensure that the bill brings meaningful improvement in order that we do benefits better. Paul O’Kane made a good point about ensuring that that work is scrutinised in terms of the outcomes that we get. Who could deny any of that? That is why we supported the moves in part 1 of the bill to enhance the care leaver payment and in part 5 to allow an individual who has been appointed to manage an individual’s DWP benefits to also manage their Social Security Scotland benefits—an eminently sensible change.

It was also important to make other technical improvements, such as that when an appointee uses any funds outside their legal or statutory duties in bad faith, they will be liable to repay those funds to the individual whom they represent. Again, that is sensible and it is designed to make life better for those who are in receipt of benefits.

The bill has made us think carefully about the changes that we need to make. Have we been honest in our approach to social security? Are we delivering better outcomes at the same time as ensuring that there is the best possible value for money?

In turn, that means that we have to decide on the priorities that we want to underpin the whole social security system. First, that means targeting support at those who are most in need rather than at those who have more means to look after themselves, so that social security is always a proper safety net and never a lifestyle choice.

Secondly, it means ensuring that we can address the concern that one in five of those who are in the economic inactivity bracket actually wants to work; Paul O’Kane made an important comment in that respect. We have to ensure that we do far more to encourage those people into the workplace, especially because they sometimes get the social security benefit but they do not necessarily get the help to get into work in time. We need to pay great attention to that.

Thirdly, we need to make policy choices that are based on good quality qualitative and quantitative evidence. That has been discussed in the recent meetings of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee, and I hope that we will pursue it.

We also need to grasp the nettle about universal payment, which I know no one wants to do but which has become a necessity as a result of the fiscal forecast. Willie Rennie mentioned Johann Lamont in his speech. I do not often agree with Johann Lamont—I did not when she was in the chamber and I have not since. Nevertheless, she made an excellent point about the elephant in the room, because that is what it is. We cannot go on with the system of universal payments that we have without making significant choices. Members will know that I have put my views on record about that in the past. I fundamentally believe that, if we are going to ensure that we have a social security system that is fit for the future, we must grasp the nettle about what universalism really means. If there are adaptations to that, as Willie Rennie suggested—I think that he is right and there are some things that we can think about—we have to decide what they will be. If we do not do that, the Parliament will make no progress at all in looking after those who are most in need.

I finish on the point that, although this is a very technical bill, this has been a good debate to have about what we want from the social security system. We agree with far more things in the bill than we disagree with, and that is why we will support it at stage 3.

I am enjoying the member’s speech. Does he accept that there should be a focus not only on real ale and beer, but on several other drinks? Scotland has a burgeoning interest in the gin market. Some excellent new distilleries around Scotland are doing a huge amount for the sector. As well as focusing on beer and real ale, it is important that we recognise the power of the pub in promoting those other drinks. When it comes to women, more of us prefer those other drinks to beer.

I entirely agree with the cabinet secretary about supporting those who are most in need. Does she nonetheless recognise that, if we continue to pay on a universal basis, many people will be receiving support when they have the means to pay for themselves?

To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether it will provide an update on the access and exiting arrangements for the underground car park. (S6O-04049)

I note what you said, Presiding Officer, in your opening remarks. The Scottish Government was rightly angered by the UK Government not giving any notice of changes to the winter fuel payment and, therefore, undermining the necessary scrutiny, but the same thing has happened this afternoon: we have not had prior sight of the statement to allow us to scrutinise it properly.

There is more than a hint of irony in today’s announcement, because the Scottish National Party moans constantly about its hands being tied, fiscally, by the bad deeds of Westminster when, as the Scottish Fiscal Commission rightly said a few months ago, some of the real pressure on budgets comes from the Scottish Government’s decisions, so it is simply not true when ministers argue that they had absolutely no choice but to leave pensioners out in the cold.

I have two questions for the cabinet secretary. First, does she admit that the SNP is hoodwinking pensioners by pretending that it is bringing back the full winter fuel payment when that is simply not the case? Secondly, the cabinet secretary said in her statement that she will bring forward regulations, so will she confirm whether she will do that via primary legislation and, if so, when that will happen?

Kenny Gibson is quite right to raise those demographic concerns, which come at the same time as we are battling against rising rates of economic inactivity. What does the minister see as the top priority when it comes to policies to address economic inactivity?