Seòmar agus comataidhean

Would the member like to outline which devolved benefits he would take away and how he would do that?

Will the member give way on that point?

Liz Smith knows that I absolutely agree with her on the issue of universalism and benefits. However, on the issue that Mr Stewart raised and that I think that Liz Smith is trying to develop, I note that ADP actually helps people into employment. If we take ADP away from people, there might be a negative effect, with more people ending up in unemployment. Does she recognise that ADP might be the wrong benefit to go after?

On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. I intervened a couple of times on ADP. I should have declared that I am on higher-rate ADP and, happily, am in employment as well.

Will non-residential social care charges be abolished by the Scottish Government before the end of the current parliamentary session, as was promised in the First Minister’s party’s 2021 manifesto?

Like others, I congratulate Pam Duncan-Glancy on securing the debate. I also thank her for highlighting the summit that will take place in February. It was a pleasure this afternoon to meet some of the young people who are in the gallery, and I am sure that the day will be a success.

I found Pam Duncan-Glancy’s speech quite uplifting. Perhaps it will be the other side of the coin to what I want to say tonight, because, although this Parliament often talks about disability and accessibility, the reality is that, often, there are warm words but very little action coming out of those discussions.

Let us look at what the political parties are doing, or are not doing, on issues affecting disabled people. One party is not even here to speak in the debate, so I will turn to the Scottish National Party, which forms the Scottish Government. It has done almost nothing to deal with the disability employment gap. We hear lots of warm words about how we need to close the gap—we have heard that from speakers already tonight—but we know that the figure has not moved at all. We must ask the Scottish Government and the UK Government what they are doing to close the gap, rather than talking about it.

The Scottish Government has dragged its feet on the changing places toilets fund. It has taken almost the full session of Parliament for that fund to come forward. Last week, I held a meeting with about 15 disability charities and asked them what one thing they would like to happen. The answer was that they want to see the Government deliver a manifesto commitment, because it still has not abolished non-residential social care charges. I ask the minister: will that happen before this session of Parliament comes to an end in the spring of next year, or was the commitment simply words on a bit of paper?

To Scottish Labour members, I say gently—or maybe not so gently—that they need to speak to their colleagues down south. We all know that the health element of universal credit is still in the pipeline and that it will make life harder for disabled people. It is easy to come up with something that will make for a cheap headline, as Labour did last week in relation to the motability scheme in a move that saved not one penny of taxpayers’ money but was simply designed to mimic Reform policies.

I say to my former colleagues on the left of me—their position in the chamber is the only thing about them that is to the left of me—that they should look at their website. The last time that it was updated with anything on social security was in September 2021. That is how seriously the Scottish Conservatives take social security. From my time in the party, I can say that they have no real understanding of how social security works, and they have no policies coming forward for disabled people.

My final point is that, earlier this year, this Parliament chose to deny disabled people the champion that they deserve. A disability commissioner would have helped to reverse decades of neglect, and it would have driven meaningful change—change that would have transformed the lives of some of the most vulnerable people in our society. However, this Parliament decided that a disability commissioner was one commissioner too many—a decision that was made just weeks after passing legislation to create a commissioner for victims and witnesses.

That decision captures the attitude that I think exists across the chamber. Parties are very good at talking the talk, but when it comes to action, disabled people are too often sidelined in favour of other priorities. I do not think that that is good enough. Disabled people deserve better.

Although I welcome the Parliament’s marking the international day of persons with disabilities, I am afraid that it rings hollow with many disabled people while parties continue to ignore us and ignore the chance to bring about real change in our society.

I say to the minister that I am afraid that that does not go far enough. I think that anyone who makes a mess should tidy it up. The Scottish Government made this mess. To me, leaving it to a third party to tidy up seems irresponsible.

I will, therefore, press amendment 1.

I lodged amendment 1 only at stage 3 because, I must confess, I thought that another member would have lodged it at stage 2. I apologise to the minister for the lateness of its lodging.

However, it became clear to me yesterday that there was still some confusion about what local authorities might have to face financially as a result of the Parliament’s previous decision and of the bill becoming an act in a few weeks’ time.

I am concerned that there might be legal challenges to the bill, the costs of which would have to be met by the Scottish Government. However, there might then be consequential challenges from one of the 32 local authorities, which would mean that resources from that council would be used either on those challenges or on other aspects of the bill’s administration. As we are all aware, local authorities the length and breadth of the country are short of money and are struggling to provide the most basic services that we require. It would be unjust and unfair for such an authority to have to pick up a bill for something that was not its fault. In fact, if it were not for a local authority pointing out the mistake in August, we would be no further forward today.

I absolutely agree with the member; that is a helpful intervention. What I am looking for tonight—which the minister did not give yesterday, when I raised the issue when he was answering questions—is some assurance that the Government will meet the reasonable costs of a local authority if it incurs extra costs as a result of the bill becoming legislation.

A bit like Mr Ross, I am seeking a guarantee from the minister—if he can give it. I do not think that the provision needs to be in the bill. However, local authorities and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities need to know from the Parliament—and, in particular, from the Government—that they will not be in financial difficulty due to any administration costs as a result of the decision that is made tonight.

I move amendment 1.

I did not hear a guarantee from the minister. I am happy to go back and read the Official Report, but I think that what I heard from the minister was very good political spin. I heard words to the effect of, “We will work with COSLA. We are open to this idea.” However, I did not hear any form of guarantee that local authorities will be compensated, by either this Government or a future Government, if they have to bear the costs. I am happy to talk for only 10 more seconds in order to let the minister intervene. Will the minister give a guarantee that, if any local authority has extra costs because of having to do work following the bill’s enactment, they will be compensated by the Scottish Government for meeting those costs—yes or no?