Pam Duncan-Glancy
Independent · Scotland
“I know that because I have been all the people I have described. They live in fear every single day, worrying about what new limit someone else will put on their life and what little power they will have to change it. They live every single day without choice at all.”
“It is the lack of support, and the lack of options, that makes me feel like I cannot go on. Disabled people do not have real choices in life. There will be countless disabled people in our constituencies tonight who have not had the choice to have a shower in weeks.”
“During the pandemic, my husband and I were so scared of other people’s power over our lives— lives that we could see others devaluing daily— that we wrote letters to each other making it clear that we wanted to be resuscitated.”
“From fighting to go to the same nursery as my sister to delaying university for two years because I could not get a care package, and from fighting to be allowed to travel on the same bus as my husband to fighting to get a bathroom adapted so that I could have a shower, absolutely everything that I have has been a fight.”
“The bill will not only put sick and disabled people at a risk that cannot be mitigated in one bill or by one policy, including the risk from coercion, but will serve to reinforce the internalised ableism that we live with every day of our lives, and legitimise the view that a life such as ours—a life of dependence and, often, pain—is not…”
“I, too, thank Liam McArthur for the way in which he has engaged on the bill and with me. Last week, we considered the specifics of what the bill would mean in real life. For 25 hours, we heard personal reflections and experiences as well as some of the difficulties in the detail.”
The complete record
Every one of 665 lines we hold for Pam Duncan-Glancy, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 14.
“I say to future legislators in the Parliament that, when they next set budgets, they should remember that social care must be considered not as a cost but as an essential investment for all of us, and it must be prioritised and funded as such. 17:37”
“The Joseph Rowntree Foundation put it perfectly last year when it said: “Despite aiming to develop a system that is fair, current charges are inconsistent, mask unmet need and cause significant financial hardship to disabled people. There are things that could be done to make the system fairer, but ultimately these charges need to end.” It is simply not right that a service that is designed to support equality can deepen financial inequality. Care is not an optional extra, and nor is it a luxury; it is essential. Care enables people to get up in the morning, to work and to live an ordinary life, and people should not be penalised for needing it. I again call for non-residential care charges to be scrapped.”
“However, that will only take us back to the status quo, because the level of funding is far short of what is needed to stabilise and guarantee the long- term sustainability of the sector. When funding is tight, the consequences are not abstract. People miss appointments because there is no one to support them to get there, people lose out on social time and community life and people go without the personal support that they need to stay well and independent. As we all know, that leads to lower participation rates, lower employment levels and poorer health. It is not only the lack of care that holds people back; charges for care also do so. Facing significant funding pressures, councils charge disabled people for the care that they need, and those charges are increasing.”
“Social care is an investment in people, society and our economy. Because the workforce is predominantly made up of women, social care is an investment in the women who are employed as carers. It is also an investment in the ability of women to take up work elsewhere, because unpaid caring responsibilities will be properly supported. All of us in the Parliament know that social care is stretched. People are fighting for the care that they need and workers are still too often waiting for the pay and conditions that they deserve. I acknowledge the change in the budget to meet the real living wage, which the Coalition of Care and Support Providers in Scotland has talked about.”
“Social care freed me, and that is why I want to use the opportunity, in what will be the last budget debate in this place that I will speak in, to talk about its importance. Social care changed my life, and it did so because of the hard work of the incredible women who support me with the things that many people never need to think about. They support me in getting up, getting dressed, managing pain, cooking, cleaning, fixing my wheelchair, getting out and getting on with my day. Like the almost 200,000 people who work in care in Scotland, they work their socks off. Because they do that, I can work my socks off, too. On the record, I say to them and the care workforce across Scotland: thank you. Because of social care, disabled people can take their place in society and contribute. That matters.”
“I am grateful for the opportunity to speak. I will use my time to talk about the importance of funding social care like it matters—not just because it matters for the many people who use it but because it matters for all of us. Almost all of the population will use or experience social care. That might be directly, it might be because someone close to us needs support, it might be because we work in care or it might be because we provide unpaid care. It is essential infrastructure for the delivery of a Scotland where opportunity is available to all. Funding it well is not only the right thing to do—it is the economically sensible thing to do, too. Social care unlocks freedoms. It is what makes ordinary things possible. I am one of the many people who rely on social care to live, study, work and build a life.”
“The regulations are a good example of how the extra costs that disabled people face can be addressed through initiatives that Governments bring in. Does the minister agree that there is therefore a need to look across Government portfolios to reduce the extra costs that disabled people face, including in relation to things such as the visitor levy? Ivan McKee: We took those steps on the visitor levy because we believed that that was the right thing to do, for the reasons that Pam Duncan- Glancy highlighted. I am sure that whatever Government is next in power will be keen to continue considering opportunities in its work to address the additional costs that disabled people face. Local Authority Funding Settlements 7.”
“It is the responsibility of local government, as the statutory provider of housing in a local area, and of central Government to be interested in and involved with it. I recommend to Pam Duncan-Glancy that her constituent—through her and through his constituency MSP—make representations to the local authority about the housing situation and the need for, I presume, adaptations to be made or the right things to be provided, so that support can be offered in that way. If she wants to write to me with more details, I will happily take a look at the case. Pension-age Disability Payment 7.”
“I have a constituent who has asked for a social care assessment, but the health and social care partnership has advised that an assessment cannot be progressed while he is living at home with his parents. However, he is unable to secure suitable housing for himself. When I raised the case with the HSCP, I was told that housing is a private matter. Does the cabinet secretary agree that that illustrates why joined-up working between housing services and HSCPs is essential? What steps could my constituent take to ensure that his housing needs are married with his social care needs, so that they can be met in a joined-up and person-centred way? Màiri McAllan: Housing is not a private matter; it involves us all.”
“The Presiding Officer: I call Paul O’Kane to speak for a generous four minutes. 20:45”
“By aligning the system better, we will address some of those issues. Through this bill, once we pass it, we will have legislated to somewhat address the issues around strategy and direction, but, again, it is not appropriate to do all of that through legislation. Much as the Greens are comfortable about voting for the bill today, the challenge—not for this Government, but for the Government that will be in place after May—is to set out a very clear strategic direction for our colleges and universities in particular. What are we trying to achieve? It is about not just our economic needs, but our social and environmental needs, because it is only with that clear direction that colleges, in particular, can thrive and succeed, as they have given us ample evidence of doing.”
“I want to credit in particular the EIS-FELA members at Forth Valley College, who, as a result of what happened at their institution, led the national campaign against fire and rehire in the college sector and won a really important victory that, in many ways, paved the way for this. I do think, as Maggie Chapman said, that the bill was something of a missed opportunity for us to address wider issues of the governance of individual institutions, both colleges and universities. We are more than a decade on from the Higher Education (Governance) Act 2016 and there is a need for us to look again at governance in the sector. However, as I said a moment ago, we can legislate to address structural issues, and both Audit Scotland and the Withers report clearly laid out structural issues in the system.”
“Those criteria are investing in workforce development, no inappropriate use of zero-hours contracts—I would suggest that all zero-hours contracts are inappropriate, but there you are—action to tackle the gender pay gap and create a more diverse and inclusive workforce, offering flexible and family-friendly working practices for all workers from day 1 of employment, and opposing the use of fire-and- rehire practices. The fact that those criteria will now be conditions of funding is a significant improvement. I credit Unite, the GMB, Unison and especially the Educational Institute of Scotland Further Education Lecturers Association—EIS-FELA— which has campaigned on the fair work issue for a very long time.”
“My starting point was the fact that, in 2021, we applied conditions to Scottish Government grants and contracts in relation to payment of at least the real living wage. The Government quite fairly put it back to me that that was not set out in legislation but was achieved through a change of policy. I am glad that, on that point, as the minister said, we came to an agreement, which was announced last week, to expand that approach in further and higher education. Two fair work criteria are currently conditions of funding: the real living wage and appropriate worker voice—that is, trade union recognition. Now, the other five criteria will also be requirements.”
“We have talked about the fact that nine of the previous 10 years saw industrial action in our college sector and the fact that many graduate teaching assistants in our universities are, in effect, working for less than the minimum wage because of how poor their salary is and how many hours they are, in practice, expected to work above what they are contracted to work. I think that we all want to address those issues, but we wrestled over the extent to which we can put funding conditions in legislation without straying into areas that are clearly reserved, such as employment law. It was not just about whether we can act; it was about whether we can act in and via legislation.”
“A lot of that ultimately comes down to decisions made by Governments and Parliaments over a number of not just years but decades. The bill has also served as a way for us to strengthen the governance structures of the SFC. There is one other area that I want to touch on before closing. I said at stage 1 that the Greens support the bill in part because we agree with the core premise, but also because of the opportunity to use the bill to address other issues. I think that we have been successful in some of those regards. Many of our debates on the groupings of amendments at stage 2 were dominated by questions of fair work and standards for apprentices and for the staff of the education institutions.”
“I point to an amendment of mine that was agreed to at stage 2 of the bill that requires the SFC to have due regard to the Government’s economic, social and environmental objectives. That was about as far as we could go in legislating on strategy, but we can resolve structural issues through legislation. Daniel Johnson: I accept Ross Greer’s point about function, to a degree. However, there is also the SFC’s ability to combine functions. If we look at the experience of the university and college sectors, which was the raison d’être of the SFC, I do not think that we see parity between those two sectors. The college sector is very much the poorer cousin of its higher education peer. Ross Greer: To some extent, Daniel Johnson makes a fair point, but I do not think that that is all on the SFC.”
“Having sat here for six and a half hours at that point, I could not find the word that I was looking for in my brain, but the word was “function”. If we gather all the relevant functions under one roof, it makes it far easier to achieve that alignment. That still requires clear strategic direction, though. We can legislate for structure, but it is much harder to legislate for strategy. Indeed, in many respects, Parliament should not legislate for strategy. It is for voters at each election to decide what Government they elect and for the Government to set its strategy, not for us in Parliament to legislate to bind future Governments. However, we can legislate to set some direction on that strategy. Daniel Johnson: Will the member take an intervention? Ross Greer: I will, in just a second.”
“However, the bill will be passed tonight, because the Greens and Liberal Democrats will support the SNP. As seems to happen in this place, we will then get a round of applause from those on the Government benches. I ask them to question what they are clapping for, because I am not sure what they think the bill is supposed to deliver and will deliver. In years to come, we will think that it has been a missed opportunity and that we could have done far better. The Presiding Officer: We move to winding-up speeches. There is a little time in hand. 20:39 Ross Greer: In my opening speech, Roz McCall intervened on me with what I think was a very fair challenge. If there is no clear strategic direction, how are we going to achieve alignment?”
“There might be very good people involved at the SFC, but their eye has been off the ball on a number of big issues that we as a Parliament would have expected them to have been all over. On ONS classification, I have been through stage 1, stage 2 amendments, stage 3 amendments and now the stage 3 debate, but I still do not know what the tipping point will be, if there are more changes in legislation in future, at which universities’ ONS classification will be in danger. During the process, the minister has repeatedly been unable to give an answer on that. Here we are, potentially voting for a bill tonight, and we still do not know. I cannot support the bill tonight. We had an opportunity in Parliament to do it a lot better, but the Government did not take it.”
“This is the priority that the education committee should be taking forward.” We have missed an opportunity to get the bill correct and to get something more important on the statute book. Daniel Johnson: As well as the lack of people giving encouraging evidence to the Education, Children and Young People Committee, the Economy and Fair Work Committee heard from a number of industry bodies that the bill would be a distraction from changes that could be undertaken now and with urgency. Does the member think that the Economy and Fair Work Committee’s evidence should also be reflected on? Douglas Ross: It should, and the Education, Children and Young People Committee put that in our report, too. My time is almost up, but I want to raise a couple more issues. I have serious concerns about the capacity of the SFC.”
“I am not standing for election in a few months’ time, but I am not sure that anyone who is standing will knock on a door and find someone embracing them with a hug to say, “Thank you for getting the tertiary education bill through Parliament. Thank you for costing the taxpayer £15.1 million”—although it could be as high as £28 million. If there is anyone who thinks that, we should have got them into the committee, because we did not find any enthusiasm for the bill at the committee. I will again quote Willie Rennie. I think that, at one point, he said that the reaction was, “Meh”—it was a shrug of the shoulders. We struggled to find people who said, “In the limited parliamentary time that you have available as elected members, go for this.”
“To stick with this issue for a little longer, I say to Jackie Dunbar that she should be less concerned about the motives or background of those who are opposing the bill and more concerned about those who are supporting it. I say this with all due respect, but the Liberal Democrats support the bill even though their spokesperson has given a long list of reasons why it is “terrible”. He said that the Liberal Democrats “reluctantly” support the bill and are hoping that it works. The Government has cobbled together enough MSPs to back the bill, but that is not a ringing endorsement of what is contained in what should be a very important piece of legislation. The Government should reflect on that. There are many reasons why I remain unconvinced about the bill, and I think that the minister would have been well served to withdraw it.”
“I thank the member for taking this intervention, as I tried and hoped to get to my mouse quickly enough to intervene on Jackie Dunbar earlier. I wanted to ask her to reflect on her comments about the Labour Party, on my membership and time on the committee and on the fact that we supported the general principles of the bills that Douglas Ross mentioned. It is important for Parliament to reflect that the committee stages are an important part of the scrutiny of legislation and that, throughout the parliamentary process, all members reserve the right to continue to seek amendments and consider how they will vote on a bill at the end of the day, after the full process has been gone through. Douglas Ross: I agree with Pam Duncan- Glancy’s points.”
“As I said, I hope that members will support amendment 10, particularly given some of the points that were made at stage 2 about ensuring that we collectively take a strategic approach and that we consider the short, medium and long-term interests of the economy and the skills that we will require. Amendment 10 will further ensure that decisions about funding Scotland’s tertiary education and skills system are shaped by evidence, informed by stakeholders and responsive to the needs of learners, employers and communities across Scotland. Amendment 74 will make a consequential change to the bill’s long title to add a reference to the strategy. I urge members to support my amendments in group 1. I move amendment 10.”
“Is the minister in a position to set out when the Government will publish the responses to the consultation that it recently carried out on support for part-time study and disabled students, which closed on 9 October? Ben Macpherson: I thank Pam Duncan-Glancy for raising that point and highlighting that important consultation. I will take that away as an action and update her and the Parliament more widely on progress relating to the findings of the consultation, when the responses will be published and when the Parliament and the public will be able to see the outcomes.”
“To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to findings published by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow indicating that a majority of clinicians anticipate practical challenges in implementing the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill. (S6F-04588) The Presiding Officer: I am somewhat disconcerted that we do not have a live audio and video feed for Ms Duncan-Glancy. I will let the question go ahead in this instance while we seek to resolve the issue.”
“The committee is right to highlight the individualisation of collective injustice, and I welcome the call to revisit regulation 15 more broadly to allow more collective action and reduce the burden that is placed on the individual. The report sets out a coherent case for reform. We must build capacity, modernise eligibility and enable collective action where injustice is collective and structural. If we are serious about rights—and I believe that we are—we should be serious about the mechanisms that make those rights enforceable, and serious about reform to deliver them. The Presiding Officer: The final speaker in the open debate is Paul McLennan. 15:15”
“Disability-related expenditure should therefore be excluded. The definition should be appropriately broad, and SLAB’s on-going review work should explicitly address that as a discrete and substantive strand of reform to support access to justice for disabled people. The committee’s discussion of waivers is also relevant here. On public interest litigation and group proceedings, the report identifies the structural problem that civil legal assistance is generally available only to individuals, which prevents groups and third sector organisations from accessing legal aid collectively, even when injustice is plainly collective.”
“Eligibility and the means test are equally important in that respect. The committee is right to be concerned that the current thresholds can create barriers to justice and can exclude people who are not, in any real sense, able to afford legal help, as colleagues have highlighted. For many, including disabled people, a fair approach must therefore also grapple with the reality of disability- related costs. Evidence from various organisations, including Scope, suggests that additional costs in that sense are significant and range widely. The average is £550 a month, but the costs can be as much as £1,000 a month or more. If we assess disposable income without properly accounting for those unavoidable costs, we could create inequality in eligibility decisions and bake it into a system that is there to protect rights.”
“The evidence on block fees illustrates the risk that funding models underpay for complex work and therefore disincentivise practitioners from taking on urgent, trauma-informed or high-effort, complex cases. As I said, disabled people’s cases are often complex because rights are interconnected by nature. If someone does not have adequate social care, accessible housing is sometimes not meaningful or useful to them; if they do not have accessible housing, employability and participation are constrained; and so on and so forth. If someone cannot challenge failure in one part of the system, harm cascades across the rest and complexity builds, so the system must recognise that complexity, rather than pricing it out, if it is to meaningfully deliver for disabled people and other seldom-heard groups.”
“They cannot uphold their rights on their own. They need support and advice—not because they do not have the potential or the capacity to do so but because the system is complex and they need help to navigate it, as we all do. The committee’s encouragement to SLAB and the Law Society to work together to build a far stronger evidence base for demand and supply is therefore absolutely essential. I add that any serious effort to understand unmet need must actively engage disabled people’s organisations and disability rights expertise, including in law centres, and the relevant capacity in universities, so that the evidence base reflects lived reality rather than only what the current system is able to record. The report is also persuasive on how the current fee structures can distort access to justice.”
“All of us here have responsibilities to create laws and policies that properly resource services, while doing so in ways that protect rights, and to ensure that there are effective routes to redress when rights are breached. That is why the report’s findings on legal aid deserts are so important. The committee is explicit about the consequences of such deserts, where the absence of advice means that people ultimately cannot exercise their legal rights. For disabled people, that is not just an abstract concern. When someone cannot access specialist advice, they cannot challenge an unlawful decision about, for example, social care, housing, discrimination or benefits. Without such challenge, poor practice becomes entrenched. For disabled people, matters are often complicated, interconnected and deep rooted.”
“A happy new year to you, Presiding Officer, and to colleagues across the chamber. I am pleased to speak in this debate on the findings and recommendations of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee’s inquiry into civil legal aid assistance in Scotland, and I thank all committee members and organisations involved for their work. The committee’s report is clear about a central point, which is that rights are meaningful only if people can enforce them. That matters acutely for many people, but I will talk specifically about why it matters for disabled people, whose rights to independent living, dignity and equal participation are too often undermined by gaps in support, inaccessible systems and a lack of practical assistance and support to lead an ordinary—or, indeed, extraordinary—life.”
“Scottish Labour would also help businesses to partner and share the delivery of apprenticeships, which could be transformational for businesses in Glasgow, because, as in many areas, skills in key sectors, including in small businesses, are in short supply. Small business Saturday happens once a year. However, as I said, support for and recognition of small businesses is not just for Christmas, but for every day. To all those who are listening and watching today, I say: pop out to your local street, find a local business and support it. You will get what you need, you will feel great and you will be celebrating the vital contribution of small businesses to this great country. 17:59”
“We would also modernise business rates to reflect changes in local economies. The UK Labour Government is already doing a lot of that and is delivering comprehensive packages of support and reform for businesses across England and Wales. Those measures include permanent reductions in business rates with multipliers for retail, hospitality and leisure, funded by higher rates for online giants to level the playing field. Since the 2024 general election, Labour has delivered £10.3 billion of additional funding for the Scottish Government. There is a real opportunity to deliver for small business owners across Scotland, if there were the political will to do so.”
“Many worry about parking provision, including charges, yet Glasgow City Council does not seem to listen. In the south side, many have raised concern about Glasgow City Council’s plans to introduce parking charges in Shawlands, Strathbungo and Battlefield, with businesses such as the Battlefield Rest speaking out about the detrimental impact it could have. We should empower and not constrain our small businesses. That means increasing flexibility to unlock potential and giving certainty so that great ideas can flourish. Scottish Labour believes that we can and should do that in many different ways, such as through a new approach to planning. We would better incentivise investment, support bricks-and-mortar retail, tackle empty properties, make town centres attractive places to visit and support entrepreneurship.”
“The business improvement district there worked tirelessly to get that in order to bring customers to Byres Road and to showcase what the area has to offer. Its work to organise events such as the Vinicombe Street Christmas gala, which I enjoyed very much this year, and its collaborations with WestFest do much to keep the vacancy rates in the area low—they sit at 3 per cent against a national average of 14 per cent. All those fantastic businesses represent the hard work of Glaswegians who are committed to entrepreneurism and their communities. They are often the product of years of passionate grafting and long hours, but that pays off in spades for our local economy and community. However, those businesses have endured years of difficulty, and they have felt let down by the Scottish Government.”
“Then there is Launch Coffee on Cresswell Street, where you can get the best homemade cookies out there and know that every purchase will help feed a child in the city of Glasgow; or Mootz, the brilliant, new Italian-inspired sandwich shop on Byres Road, whose menu is so delicious that you will find those sandwiches nowhere else. Roots, Fruits and Flowers also has its own unique offer. Established in 1980, it has supplied organic wholefoods, fruit and veg and bespoke flowers for 35 years. If you grew up in Maryhill, the Jaconelli’s roll and sausage or full breakfast will have been a constant feature of your week. Last December, Byres Road was ranked number 9 in the American Express top 10 list of UK high streets—the only high street in Scotland to make the list.”
“Small business Saturday is an annual opportunity to celebrate the hard work of small businesses across the UK. Shopping locally is not just good for the economy; it is good for our communities and good for Glasgow. It is also not just for Christmas. We need to do it all year round. There are so many small businesses in Glasgow to celebrate in this great city today. In the south side, there is the brilliant Bespoke Beauty, a family-run business that not only provides incredible therapies such as massage and skin care but acts as a sanctuary for many of its customers who enjoy the peace of self-care at the hands of brilliant, highly trained professionals.”
“Certainly, I will take an interest in that particular scheme, and I will pass on the comments to Màiri McAllan, the Cabinet Secretary for Housing, whose portfolio might have appropriate levers in place. Road Safety Management (Safe System Capacity Building Programme) 4.”
“I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests. This week, I met local home owners and constituents in Glasgow who spoke passionately about the co-operative retrofit model. The model works in communities to share information about options for retrofitting for all income groups. Is the cabinet secretary aware of the co-operative work in that space? What support could she provide to help communities and local industry to replicate and adapt the co-operative retrofit model for their areas, including community organising, peer support, specialist consultancy, and start-up grants? Gillian Martin: I am always keen to hear about action that is happening on the ground that can be replicated throughout the country.”
“The UK Labour Government has already delivered a direct pay rise for 200,000 of the lowest-paid Scottish workers. That is the sort of action that we need—action to deliver the rights of people to participate in society, to work and to contribute. That is how people have dignity; that is how we empower people; that is how we meet the skills gap in Scotland; and that is how we will not just reduce poverty, but consign it, rightly, to the dustbin of history. 15:31”
“There are 1.7 million people in Scotland with arthritis or musculoskeletal conditions, which are among the biggest causes of persistent pain, disability and lost working days. Such people could benefit from a hip or knee replacement, for example, yet of the more than 10,000 waits of over 52 weeks for in- patient day-case treatment in Glasgow at the end of October, 15 per cent were for orthopaedics. It is clear that there is still such a long way to go to ensure that people are able to realise their human rights, including the right to work. A Scottish Labour Government would set about removing the barriers. We would clear the waiting list backlog so that fewer people were locked out of work, revitalise colleges and reform employability.”
“Although some disabled people are unable to work, we know that, with the right support and structures in place, many want to work and many can thrive in the workplace and contribute significantly to the economy. The equality academy run by the Glasgow Centre for Inclusive Living is an incredible example of how that can be done. The organisation, which is in my region, runs an internship programme that provides NHS placements for disabled graduates. The programme supports disabled people to unlock their potential and has an 88 per cent success rate for getting people into work. We need more such programmes. Then there are the thousands of disabled people who are left languishing on social care and NHS waiting lists, unable to access the support that they need to fulfil their potential.”
“The UK Government did not, and Scottish Labour would not, stop there, because tackling the causes of poverty and boosting the means of defeating it, including through employability, housing and education, need action, too—action that the SNP Government has failed to take. The long-term solution to breaking the cycle of poverty must include supporting people into good, well- paid jobs. That means properly funding colleges to deliver skills, providing apprenticeships in key skills areas for anyone who qualifies and supporting people who desperately want to work but who face relentless discrimination or barriers to getting into work. Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that the disability employment gap in Scotland still sits at 31.5 per cent.”
“principles”, mean nothing if the Government cannot put its money where its mouth is. The Government uses warm words but does not put in the hard graft to deliver the deeds. The job of government is to do things, not just to say things. That is why I welcome the announcement in the UK budget of the removal of the two-child limit for those on universal credit, which will lift an estimated 450,000 children across the UK out of poverty. That is the biggest projected fall in child poverty on record, according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. The UK Government is not just saying empty words; it is acting.”
“We were told that the production of letters in different formats requires a manual workaround, but we should remember that we are talking about an information technology system that was millions of pounds over budget, so it is of concern that it is failing on a basic aspect of meeting needs. Advice services in Glasgow have told me that they find the system hard to navigate. According to Citizens Advice Scotland, the fastest-growing areas of advice on ADP relate to redeterminations and appeals. That means repeating information, and it leaves people exhausted, unheard and without hope. According to Audit Scotland’s assessment, there will be a funding gap of £2 billion by 2029-30, with the absence of a strategy to fill it. Warm words, or, as the Government’s amendment says, a “commitment to ...”
“I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests. Social security exists to provide a safety net, but safety nets are of no use if they have holes in them. To promise a new way but not manage the forecast spend is not just unfair but a dereliction of responsibility. So, too, is marching people up a hill with promises of a kinder approach when, according to a report on ADP by Edel Harris OBE, disabled people remain frustrated about processes, inconsistent decision making and the lack of understanding of particular conditions. My inbox reflects that reality. I have had constituents who have struggled to get information in accessible formats—they might have visual impairment or need the information in another language.”
“The North West Glasgow Voluntary Sector Network supports, connects and advocates for organisations providing vital services to the people who live in the north-west of Glasgow, many of them from some of the most deprived areas. All that could end in March, however, because it was told this week that it is losing its funding. What can the cabinet secretary do to help the network, and will she work with me to ask the council to rethink the decision to defund that critical service? Shona Robison: As Pam Duncan-Glancy will know, it is for councils to make decisions about the various organisations that receive funding in their areas. We also provide considerable funding to third sector organisations. If Pam Duncan-Glancy would like to furnish me with further details, I would be happy to communicate with her about that particular group.”