Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes, it has a knock-on effect within the family unit, and it is vitally important that individuals are given the opportunity. If that opportunity does not exist, there will be a lack of communication and a lack of cohesion in the family unit, and it can sometimes cause disturbance and distraction.

Another issue relates to teachers of the deaf being qualified to BSL level 3. It is vital that we have those qualified teachers working in the classroom.

It is important that the Scottish Government addresses those issues by establishing a pipeline of qualified interpreters, BSL teachers and classroom support services.

However, many of the issues begin long before a child enters formal education. As we have heard, there are also numerous problems when deaf children are progressing through early years education. Deaf children have limited opportunities to learn BSL in their early years, and witnesses highlighted to the committee that some children are beginning nursery without any meaningful language skills. It is tragic that some individuals are going into that environment without those skills and finding themselves at a disadvantage.

Deaf support workers, including specialist support workers for supported living, play a key part in addressing that challenge. Those workers carry out important work in engaging with deaf children from a very early age, giving them a positive attitude and supporting them on their path.

If the SNP fails to address those challenges in early years education, it will only create further challenges for young deaf people in their experience of education further down the road. As the committee highlighted, we cannot have a situation in which some deaf children are starting nursery or school with next to no knowledge of their native language.

The committee’s report also highlights that deaf people face particular challenges in rural settings; we have heard about that today from some members who represent rural communities, where BSL services are harder to access. Rural councils often lack deaf clubs and specialist opportunities, and they may not have the resources to identify and support deaf individuals. The Scottish Government must listen to the committee’s recommendations on that issue in order to close the opportunity gap between deaf people in rural communities and those living in the central belt.

While the Scottish Government appears to have accepted the need for positive change, we have to ensure that it remains focused on the recommendations to ensure that there is a shift towards delivering what is required. For example, with regard to the shortage of interpreters, we still have no clear timescales and no workforce strategy that reflects the seriousness of the challenges. As I said, in order to support individuals, we must address isolation and lack of access in rural areas by ensuring access to deaf clubs and improving digital provision.

All those things play a part, and it is vitally important that we look across all the recommendations. We heard from public bodies about how they can be supported to promote BSL effectively. There may be good intentions from the Government, but we need to ensure that what follows is about more than just good will.

In dealing with this issue, one goal should be to ensure that the deaf generation of today does not have to struggle as past deaf generations did. Deaf individuals speak about feeling like second-class citizens, struggling to find meaningful employment and feeling that they are unable to fulfil their true potential. We also heard today about difficulties faced in health services and how deaf people can be affected as a result.

In conclusion, the SNP Government should take the committee’s report as an important reminder of those issues and ensure that the 2015 act can finally live up to its full potential so that individuals are given the respect and the opportunities that they need. They want to see from us a recognition of what they have achieved so far, and of what we should be achieving on their behalf.

We will speak about that light-touch approach and we can discuss the number of people who, as part of the benefits process, have been receiving funds in error or due to fraud.

As I said, it is expected that, by 2029-30, ADP will cost £770 million more than the equivalent UK benefit would have done. The ADP’s light-touch review system might be one of the biggest drivers of this increase in cost compared with the personal independence payment system in the UK. The current review system allows claimants to self-declare that their circumstances have not changed. All they need to do is tick a box on a form, so it is hardly surprising that the Auditor General concluded that

“Social Security Scotland does not have a reliable figure for the amount lost to fraud and error”.

A recent freedom of information request revealed that Social Security Scotland had reported only 29 cases of fraud since 2023-24. That is compared with the thousands of cases that are likely to have happened. If the SNP is at all serious about addressing spiralling benefit costs, it must look at its naive approach to fraud and error.

Our motion also speaks about the UK Government’s decision to remove the two-child limit. In the coming years, that decision will cost UK taxpayers at least £2 billion extra, which will put a strain on our public services. In the current climate, that is not the right priority for the UK or Scottish Governments, and we cannot support the decision.

The SNP had already set aside £155 million, which could have been spent elsewhere, to remove the cap in Scotland. How long has it been since we have seen that across the UK? I hope that £155 million will be used to support hard-working families and taxpayers.

However, the First Minister has already confirmed that the extra money will be added straight back on to Scotland’s benefits bill.

Once again, it falls to the Scottish Conservatives to highlight the ever-increasing benefits bill that Scottish taxpayers face. My motion highlights the unsustainable social security spending commitments that the Scottish National Party Government has made since it received significant powers over benefits in 2016.

I will make it clear: when we say that the SNP’s rising benefits bill is unsustainable, we mean it. The SNP spends more on benefits than it does on our schools or our police. One in seven pounds of the Government’s spend goes on the benefits budget.

The Scottish Fiscal Commission has forecast that the Scottish benefits bill will rise to £9 billion by 2029-30. The SNP has already spent £1.2 billion each year on top of what it receives in block grant adjustments. By 2029-30, the figure is forecast to hit a shocking £2 billion.

Audit Scotland has said:

“The Scottish Government has not yet set out a detailed strategy for how it will manage the forecast gap between social security funding and spending within its overall budget.”

That is a damning indictment. However, it is not surprising, because the SNP has so far shown no intention of getting its benefits bill under control. It does not see doing so as a priority.

I think that you will find that the Conservatives did vote for it, but you have to understand that your light-touch approach, which I will come on to speak about later—

I am running out of time.

If that decision does not sum up the SNP Government’s high-tax, high-welfare approach to government, I do not know what does.

Having spent years complaining about the previous UK Government’s approach to benefits, the SNP is now discovering that it is not as easy as it looks. In 2017, the estimated cost of setting up the Scottish Government’s in-house benefits agency, Social Security Scotland, was £300 million and, by 2023, that had blossomed to £700 million.

The Government refuses to learn any lessons and, judging by Shirley-Anne Somerville’s amendment, that will not change any time soon. The amendment not only ignores the £2 billion spending gap, but calls for the UK Labour Government to increase the UK’s benefits bill even further.

The Labour amendment at least acknowledges the funding gap that exists. However, it also celebrates Labour’s decision to remove the two-child limit by increasing taxes on working people. We therefore cannot support the amendment.

Scotland’s benefits system should be an essential safety net for those who need assistance. We can all agree on that principle. The Scottish Conservatives believe that this system must be fair and affordable. We must ensure that the spiralling costs are not balanced on the backs of hard-working Scottish taxpayers. That is where we differ from all other parties in the chamber, because the left-wing consensus does not want to accept those principles. The scale of the problem is such that it is too big for the SNP Government to ignore. Instead of burying its head in the sand, this is the time for the Government to be honest with Scottish taxpayers about how it will fix the mess that it has created.

I move,

That the Parliament believes that social security spending by the Scottish Government and its future social security spending commitments are unsustainable; notes the report published by Audit Scotland in September 2025, Adult Disability Payment; further notes that the Audit Scotland report highlights a “funding gap for devolved social security spending of £2.0 billion by 2029/30”; calls on the Scottish Government to explain why, according to Audit Scotland, it “has not yet set out a detailed strategy for how it will manage the forecast gap between social security funding and spending”; believes that raising taxes in order to remove the limit on the child element of Universal Credit was not the right priority for either the Scottish Government or the UK Government, and calls on the Scottish Government to use the money that it will save, as a result of the UK Government's decision, to lower costs for people across Scotland by instead cutting income tax.

Audit Scotland has warned that councils are under severe financial pressure this year, with community facilities and local services already being cut back. Community groups tell us that they simply do not have the capacity to take on more. Does the cabinet secretary therefore accept that relying on community-led initiatives is not a substitute for properly funded local government?

We need to have a discussion about universality in benefits. We have already spoken about the SNP’s light touch when it comes to keeping records on benefits, and that is a vitally important matter. We want to see the economy grow and we want to get people off benefits and into the job market, so that they can prosper and move forward.

The amount spent on adult disability payment is the largest of all the devolved benefits and is the biggest contributor to the SNP’s overspend in that area. By 2029-30, ADP alone will cost Scottish taxpayers £770 million more than the equivalent UK benefit would have.

I thank my colleague Sue Webber for bringing this important debate to the chamber. Her motion highlights the growing problem of the dangerous and antisocial use of e-bikes and e-scooters, and I welcome the fact that Parliament finally has the opportunity to debate the issue. The dangers that we are seeing from these vehicles are becoming a frequent concern in many communities. Members are quite right to highlight that they are hearing about many such issues from concerned constituents.

It is true that the problem appears to be worse in our large cities—Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Dundee and Glasgow—but it is also clear that the problem is not confined to urban areas. Concerns have been raised repeatedly across my region about these vehicles, in areas such as Clackmannanshire, Stirling, Fife and Perthshire.

Earlier this year, a 19-year-old was arrested after a collision involving an e-bike in the village of Fallin, in Stirlingshire. Accidents are happening regularly, and individuals are requiring medical attention. We often hear reports of these vehicles being ridden dangerously along pavements and paths, and—as we have heard this evening—the riders wear balaclavas or face coverings to conceal their identity.

Despite the fact that it is illegal, as we have heard from other members, these vehicles are becoming an increasingly common sight on our streets and pathways.

In the previous decade, we became used to seeing motorised scooters being used for crime, including in drive-by thefts and vandalism. Those scooters were small, manoeuvrable and fast, and they were easy to get hold of and to get rid of. For many criminals, they were an ideal partner in crime. E-bikes and e-scooters are smaller and more nimble to manoeuvre, and they are better able to be modified, which makes them even more dangerous and fearsome. Naturally, that means that it is even harder for the police to deal with them, and they are sometimes difficult to trace. Vehicles have to be designed in a better way to ensure that we manage that.

There are areas—across many constituencies and regions, as we have heard—that are quickly becoming known for these problems. A tough approach from Police Scotland is needed to tackle the issue. In some cases, it will also require innovation from Police Scotland, because new technology often calls for new approaches. I look forward to hearing whether the minister, along with Police Scotland, is considering any new approaches to tackle the issue.

As Sue Webber’s motion highlights, Police Scotland’s approach should include seizing these vehicles permanently, without giving them back; we do not want them to be returned. The use of CCTV in crime hotspots also has a role to play. I am aware that the Scottish Government has been encouraging further anonymous reporting of these vehicles through the Crimestoppers service. That is also a valuable tool, but further measures have to be put in place to ensure that there are tough consequences for these individuals if they are using e-scooters and e-bikes. Local police must be allowed to tackle the issue in the way that they see fit, in order to manage their communities.

As I have said, we also need political leadership on the issue. The bikes can move at excessive speeds, and they run the risk of starting battery fires. They are dangerous to our communities and to individuals.

In conclusion, the onus is on the Scottish Government and Scottish National Party ministers to come up with a detailed, comprehensive action plan and to ensure that Police Scotland is given the resources that it needs to take those actions. The public are demanding action to keep communities safe, and it is our important responsibility, as MSPs, to provide that. It is high time that people were listened to and that a plan was delivered and acted on.

I am pleased to speak in the debate, and I thank Pam Duncan-Glancy for bringing this important issue to the chamber.

The international day of persons with disabilities reminds us of our collective responsibility to uphold the rights, dignity and wellbeing of disabled people across all areas of life and all aspects of society. It is important that Parliament acknowledges this day, and I congratulate Pam Duncan-Glancy and the societies, groups and organisations that all play a part.

I welcome the UN’s chosen theme for this year, which is fostering disability-inclusive societies for advancing social progress. That theme reflects a simple truth, which is that the whole of society benefits when we support disabled people to thrive by removing barriers and widening access for them.

When I engage with organisations in my region, including employment services and third sector groups, it is clear just how much those organisations, and individuals with disabilities in the area, contribute to the communities that they work in every day and ensure that those communities thrive.

Pam Duncan-Glancy’s motion rightly speaks about some of the challenges that disabled people continue to face. Those challenges include barriers to accessing education, securing stable employment and accessing public services, which remains difficult for disabled people.

Of all those challenges, employment remains one of the most significant. From 2013 to 2019, we saw positive change on that issue, and the proportion of disabled people in employment increased from 43 to 54 per cent. Despite some progress, however, we know that the disability employment gap remains stubbornly high. Recent figures have shown that the disability employment rate is 53.1 per cent, which is nearly 30 percentage points lower than the rate for those who are non-disabled. We also know that employment rates for disabled people fell during the pandemic, and that, overall, the proportion of disabled people in employment has not increased since 2019.

While we recognise the progress, there is a lot of work to do. We have to ensure that much more work is done. For example, we need to ensure that workplaces are genuinely inclusive, that disabled people have access to the correct support and that employers are able to make any necessary adjustments to enable them to work.

The previous United Kingdom Government doubled spending on the access to work programme between 2016 and 2024, and that provision helped to deliver employment support for more than 67,000 individuals in 2023-24. As we go forward, it is important that there is a continued commitment to supporting disabled people to seek work where possible, so that further progress can be achieved.

Inclusion should be not just an aspiration but an essential part of a fairer Scotland, which we all want to see. It is therefore important that we ask the Scottish Government to continue to engage constructively with Parliament’s forthcoming disability summit. I look forward to seeing what can be achieved from that.

The United Kingdom Government also has a key role to play in the process, as most aspects of equalities and employment law are still reserved matters. We must ensure that UK-wide disability rights legislation remains robust and effective and that Governments work together to make employment practices more inclusive. Disabled people deserve a system that works for them across all parts of the United Kingdom and at all levels of government.

In conclusion, I hope that members on all sides of the chamber can work together to make that vision a reality, because disabled people want nothing more than for the Parliament to work with them to achieve the goals that they rightfully deserve to reach.

Forth Valley royal hospital maternity service in Larbert is the latest maternity service to receive a damning report from an unannounced inspection. The report highlighted that mothers were being put at serious risk and that some had to wait up to 62 hours to be induced. What is the Scottish Government doing to ensure that lessons are learned from the report and that safeguards are put in place to protect mothers and their unborn babies as a matter of urgency?