Shirley-Anne Somerville
Scottish National Party · Scotland
“Laura Moodie: Does the cabinet secretary recognise the distress that is being caused to constituents, including a disabled veteran in my region, by the continued uncertainty around the scheme?”
“The Scottish Government has been working closely with Motability since March, and its notification of changes from 1 July in England, Wales and Northern Ireland—the 1 July commencement—is not set to apply in Scotland.”
“The Scottish Government is committed to working with East Lothian Council and private partners to unlock investment and growth at the strategic site at Blindwells, and we are providing £2.4 million of funding flexibility to support the development of the outline business case.”
“What reassurances can investors be given that the Scottish Government will work with them to deliver the project? Shirley-Anne Somerville: As I mentioned in my original answer, my ministerial colleagues and I recognise the strategic importance of Blindwells not just to housing but to the East Lothian economy.”
“Motability will continue to work with the Scottish Government to see what can be done, because it also recognises the distress and inconvenience that the situation is causing.”
“She said that she did not want to call out only Reform. Will she call out Alex Cole-Hamilton for mentioning the Third Reich or Daniel Johnson for making insinuations about fascism?”
The complete record
Every one of 503 lines we hold for Shirley-Anne Somerville, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 8 of 11.
“What the Scottish Government should be delivering to help to promote growth is clear. It should address the overtaxation of business, address the excessive regulation, provide the support for skills and apprenticeship that businesses need and ensure that the infrastructure is there—with roads such as the A9 and rail and ferry networks—to support the economy. The programme for government is a missed opportunity for Scottish business. What we need to see is growth, but that is not what the Government is delivering. That is the point of our amendment.”
“It means that, for India, which is potentially the world’s largest whisky market, we will see a halving of the current 150 per cent tariff on Scotch whisky to 75 per cent, with a staged reduction down to 40 per cent over 10 years. That will be transformational for the industry, with the potential to increase income from Scotch whisky exports by £1 billion over five years and create 1,200 jobs across the UK. That is tremendous news, so why have we heard nothing about it from the Scottish Government? Perhaps the reason is that it is being delivered only as a consequence of Brexit and our ability to make such agreements on our own outwith the EU. However, the First Minister would rather moan about Brexit than celebrate the opportunities that it brings for Scottish business.”
“Murdo Fraser: I am running out of time, so I ask my colleague to forgive me. The Scottish Government has had 18 years to do that. Finally, it is waking up to the fact that its policies might be harming growth. Yesterday, we heard from the First Minister about promoting international trade, which is very welcome. Remarkably, however, we heard nothing about yesterday’s real big news, which was the announcement that there is to be a free trade agreement between India and the United Kingdom. The Scotch Whisky Association described that as “a once in a generation deal”. I know that there are issues with some of the detail, but the previous UK Conservative Government worked hard to bring that together and it is good to see it being completed.”
“I also thought that the programme for government might address the rates imbalance with Barnett consequentials not being passed on and that it might deal with the overregulation of business holding back sectors such as tourism. Sadly, I was disappointed. What did we see instead? We saw a promise to publish an “action and implementation plan based on an assessment of the regulatory controls which exist in key growth sectors”. The SNP has been in power for 18 years, and it is talking about publishing more plans. What businesses need is action and not more bits of paper. There was also a promise to subject “future Scottish Government regulation to scrutiny to ensure that its purpose, content and timing have regard to potential opportunities and impacts on business and investment”. John Mason: Will the member give way?”
“That is exactly what happened yesterday. Murdo Fraser: Rent controls are an SNP Government policy; they are not supported by this party. We will not support the housing bill if rent controls are part of it. I give the cabinet secretary that absolute assurance, because the policy has driven away £3 billion of investment in Scotland— that £3 billion has gone elsewhere. I looked forward to seeing whether the programme for government would signal a change of direction and whether the tax differential between Scotland and the rest of the UK would be addressed, given all the concern that we hear from industry about the difficulty that it presents in attracting skilled people to come here.”
“Will the member take an intervention? Murdo Fraser: I ask the cabinet secretary to let me make this point. I will then give way. That means that, at a time when we have a housing emergency, which even the Scottish Government accepts, we are simply not building enough new houses to rent. That is a direct result of the choices that have been made by the Scottish Government. Shirley-Anne Somerville: Earlier, Murdo Fraser called my Scottish Green colleagues “anti- growth”, which is a highly pejorative term. Will he comment on members of the Conservative Party voting with the Greens to make rent controls easier during stage 2 of the Housing (Scotland) Bill yesterday? I am afraid that he is not up to date with what is happening in the rest of his party, because it has increased the chances of rent controls rather than decreasing them.”
“I add that the Scottish Government is committed to reviewing its guidance, and that office is engaged with wider United Kingdom work on the topic. The Government statistical service harmonisation team is currently developing harmonised standards for collecting data on sex and gender identity. The office of the chief statistician is contributing to that work and will consider its output as part of its review of the chief statistician’s guidance.”
“Does the cabinet secretary agree with recommendation 2, which says: “Data on sex should be collected by default in all research and data collection commissioned by government”? She has already commented on recommendation 23, which includes the suggestion from the OSR that the Scottish Government’s 2021 guidance for public bodies on the data collection and publication of sex, gender identity and trans status should be reviewed. How might the Scottish Government support public bodies to confidently collect accurate and legally compliant data on both sex and gender identity? Shirley-Anne Somerville: In my previous answer, I mentioned the work that is continuing in the office of the chief statistician.”
“In 2021, the office of the chief statistician published guidance for public bodies in Scotland on the collection of sex and gender data, which recommended that statistics producers should collect data that best serves the needs of users in their specific context. That approach aligns with the 2024 guidance that was published by the Office for Statistics Regulation. The Sullivan review recommended that the Scottish Government should review its guidance in light of the recommendations contained in that review, and the Scottish Government has previously committed to reviewing its guidance by the end of 2026. Stephanie Callaghan: I will ask specifically about recommendations 2 and 23.”
“Shirley-Anne Somerville: The First Minister made it absolutely clear—as did I in my statement last week—that we respect the rule of law and the judgment of the Supreme Court. It is important that everyone in this matter is aware of their tone and the temperament of debate during this time. It is very important that the Scottish ministers do not take a view on what happens within a parliamentary committee, in relation to this and other issues. It is inappropriate for Government ministers to opine in such a manner.”
“Last week, the First Minister stood up in this chamber and said that he would respect the rule of law and abide by the Supreme Court’s ruling. This morning, Scottish National Party MSPs voted to keep Green MSP Maggie Chapman as deputy convener of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee after she shockingly attacked the highest court in the land following the verdict. Maggie Chapman has shown contempt for the rule of law and has brought the committee into disrepute, when it should be scrutinising the implementation of the Supreme Court’s judgment. Does the cabinet secretary agree that the SNP’s decision to keep her in post on the committee risks undermining trust in Holyrood itself—yes or no?”
“A working group, led by the permanent secretary, has been established to take that work forward. We wished, at ministerial level, to meet the EHRC to ensure that our work and its can operate well together. Unfortunately, the EHRC cancelled that meeting at short notice. We are keen within Government to meet it, at both ministerial and official level, as a matter of urgency. I have made clear to the EHRC that I am happy to meet it any time. I understand that officials are due to meet it this week. In the meantime, this Government is already continuing with its work to implement the Supreme Court judgment. Tess White: The cabinet secretary talked about that meeting. We all know the truth behind that meeting.”
“Tess White: The EHRC’s update was crystal clear, and there is a vacuum right now. Biological males should not be permitted to use the women’s facilities in workplaces or public buildings such as schools or hospitals. That is compulsory. It is the law, as the Supreme Court ruling and the EHRC have clearly laid out, yet John Swinney said yesterday that public bodies should wait for the “legal certainty” of full EHRC guidance in June before implementing new policies. The Scottish Government is dragging its feet. Will it now finally stop kicking the can down the road and remove biological men from women’s spaces across the public sector—yes or no? Shirley-Anne Somerville: As I have mentioned, work has already begun across Government to consider the implications of the judgment in areas such as legislation, guidance and cost.”
“The Scottish Government accepts the judgment of the Supreme Court, and work has begun on implementation. I have asked the permanent secretary to stand up a short-life working group to ensure support and consistency across Government on that work. Following publication of the EHRC’s update late on Friday evening, I wrote to ask the EHRC to confirm that it agrees that no public body, service provider or other association should issue specific guidance before the EHRC code of practice and guidance is finalised. As the EHRC is the enforcer and regulator of the Equality Act 2010, all organisations must consider and comply with its revised code of practice and guidance to ensure that there is a consistent and clear understanding of the correct application of the law for all involved, in what is a complex area.”
“As we devolved our benefits system, we put so much effort, collectively as a Parliament, into reducing stigma and encouraging people to apply for what they are entitled to. It is deeply disappointing to see the UK Government on a different track. I have been in politics for a long time now, but I never thought that I would hear Labour ministers referring to people in need of support as “taking the mickey”, and, in the case of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, going on national television and equating disability benefit payments to the “pocket money” that he pays his children. Such reckless language makes life all the harder for disabled people. It increases the barriers to—”
“The word “everyone” is key, because any of us might find ourselves, at any point in our lives, needing help from that collective safety net if we are unable to get paid work due to sickness, or if we have a disability, with all the extra financial costs that disability brings, or, indeed, because we are caring for a loved one—such care reduces demand on wider health and social care resources. The Scottish Government’s position stands in sharp contrast to the damaging cuts that are being proposed, and which have begun to be implemented, by the UK Government. It would seem that the UK Government is utterly intent on really unforgivable and stigmatising rhetoric, which is already causing great concern and distress, in particular towards people with mental health conditions and other people who are entitled to help from the benefits system.”
“I open this important debate with a message of solidarity: I want all disabled people to know that this Government stands with you in opposing the planned UK Government benefit changes. I hope that everyone here in the Scottish Parliament can come together today to condemn the really callous reforms that aim to save money on the backs of some of the most vulnerable people in our society. It is important that we begin by reflecting on the purpose of social security and on what the duty of the Government is to its citizens. Social security is an essential safety net made available to everyone.”
“I intend to allow about 35 minutes for questions, after which we will move on to the next item of business.”
“The issues that surround the Supreme Court case are challenging and will need careful consideration so that the public sector can ensure the dignity and safety of everyone who uses its services. It is vital that the EHRC now issues clear and practical guidance in response to the judgment, which has confirmed the definition of “woman” under the Equality Act 2010. There have been many challenging arguments over the past five years, and I hope that we can move to a point at which we again focus on progressing equality for the people of Scotland. The pursuit of equality is not a contest between communities; it is a collective effort to build a fairer Scotland for all and is the foundation on which this Parliament was built. The Presiding Officer: The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues that were raised in her statement.”
“That is why this Government has, for example, progressed our world-leading equally safe strategy, which tackles violence against women and girls. However, I am sure that we all recognise that there remains so much more to do to tackle the challenges, barriers and dangers that women and girls face. To that end, I announced at the end of February that the Scottish Government will work in partnership with the national advisory council, as it has requested, to develop an equality strategy for women and girls before the end of this parliamentary session. Those actions demonstrate that equality is not just a principle but something that we are committed to making real in people’s lives every day. In conclusion, I will return to where I began: the people we all serve.”
“Our Parliament has a strong track record of advancing the rights of LGBT+ people, and I am sure that we will all continue to ensure that further progress is made. We engage proudly and visibly with LGBT+ communities during pride season and LGBT history month, and we must do so throughout the year. The Scottish Government will continue to accelerate equality through our national advisory council on women and girls. We will drive real change in Scotland by challenging systemic inequality and ensuring that the voices of women and girls are not only heard but acted on. Indeed, this Parliament has been at the forefront of many changes, including legislation on domestic abuse and on victims of sexual violence.”
“With those principles, I firmly believe that the role of this Parliament is to provide leadership in ensuring that equality, inclusion and human rights are not optional values but the foundation of a fair society and at the heart of our public services. This Government—and, I hope, all in our Scottish Parliament—will continue to advance equality and protect the rights of women, girls and the LGBTQI+ community. Our work reflects a clear and enduring belief that everyone in Scotland should be free to live their lives with dignity, safety and respect. We will continue to work closely with LGBT+ organisations to ensure that their communities are empowered and that human rights are protected.”
“I have also had the opportunity to speak to the Women’s Rights Network, and I was grateful for its time and to hear directly from it about its views on the judgment and its implementation. As I have done today, I restated categorically to the network that the Scottish Government fully accepts the Supreme Court’s judgment and is now working on next steps. Given the length of the judgment, it is important to work through it in detail, and I offered to meet again once that work has been undertaken. An invite was also sent to For Women Scotland. It has chosen not to accept that invite at this time, but it has fed back that it wants us to move on with implementation. I assure it and the chamber that that work is progressing. I spoke earlier about the principles of empathy, compassion and equality.”
“All organisations must comply with all relevant legislation, and guidance from the EHRC will be key in that process. I wanted to reach out to stakeholders as soon as possible after the judgment, to give the Government’s initial response and to offer to meet again to discuss the Scottish Government’s on- going work. Stakeholders that represent trans and non-binary people are reporting real anxiety among their networks and service users and concerns about their daily lives. It is significant that the Supreme Court stated in its judgement that the rights of the trans community are enshrined in law. I want to reassure our trans community that you are valued and the Scottish Government is fully committed to protecting everyone’s rights—that includes your community.”
“Immediately following last week’s judgment, I wrote to UK Government counterparts to seek an urgent meeting. That reflects the fact that the judgment has implications across the UK, given that the 2004 act extends across the UK, and the 2010 act extends to England, Wales and Scotland. I am awaiting a response to that letter. Along with the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, I will be meeting with the EHRC on Thursday and will seek an update on its plans for renewed guidance by the summer. This Government calls for that process to be inclusive and to ensure that there will be engagement with all those on whom it will impact. The guidance is important for Governments across Scotland, England and Wales, as well as public authorities and private and voluntary sector organisations, following the Supreme Court judgment.”
“We are amending the guidance on the 2018 act in order to take account of the ruling. There has been commentary as to the implications of the ruling in respect of the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill. The bill was prevented from proceeding to royal assent by an order that was made by the then Secretary of State for Scotland. Following the judgment last week, the Scottish Government has no plans to bring the bill back. While the UK Government has indicated that it intends to bring forward proposals to reform the Gender Recognition Act 2004, we have not yet seen any firm proposals. This Government stands ready to engage constructively on any plans following last week’s judgment. Gender recognition is a fundamental piece of equality legislation. Let me be very clear: this Government does not support the repeal of the 2004 act.”
“It concluded that the Scottish Government guidance on the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018 is incorrect in relation to its definition of “woman”. The judgment also makes it very clear that trans people continue to have protection and rights. As the press summary issued by the Supreme Court on the judgment said: “Trans people are protected from discrimination on the ground of gender reassignment. They are also able to invoke the provisions on direct discrimination and harassment, and indirect discrimination on the basis of sex. In the light of case law interpreting the relevant provisions, a trans woman can claim sex discrimination because she is perceived to be a woman.” We fully accept the Supreme Court’s judgment and have begun to analyse the impact.”
“In paragraph 8, the Supreme Court said: “The central question on this appeal is whether the EA 2010 treats a trans woman with a GRC”— a gender recognition certificate— “as a woman for all purposes within the scope of its provisions, or when that Act speaks of a ‘woman’ and ‘sex’ it is referring to a biological woman and biological sex.” The Supreme Court concluded: “The meaning of the terms ‘sex’, ‘man’ and ‘woman’ in the EA 2010 is biological”. The Supreme Court noted within its judgment that, in the statutory guidance to the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018, Scottish ministers reflected the stance of the EHRC that a person issued with a full GRC in the acquired gender of female is a “woman” within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010.”
“The Scottish Government successfully defended its guidance twice, in both the outer house and the inner house. However, the Supreme Court is the final decision maker on such legal issues, and it has delivered a carefully considered judgment. The definition of women in the guidance was the definition in the Equality Act 2010, and we were guided on the meaning of that definition by guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which is the enforcement body for the 2010 act. As we heard in last week’s judgment, issues arose from a tension between two pieces of Westminster legislation and how they interact. The question of compatibility between the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2010 was central to the court’s ruling.”
“As the Supreme Court made clear, the judgment must not be used as a licence for division and hostility. The pursuit of equality for women and for trans people is our collective responsibility. All of us in the chamber must ensure that the rights and dignity of all are upheld, and our debate must be rooted in empathy, compassion and equality. Indeed, in his delivery of the judgment, Lord Hodge, giving the opinion of the court, said that the court “counsel against reading this judgement as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another—it is not.” Let me turn to the judgment. This case centres on the guidance that was issued for the Gender Representation on Public Bodies (Scotland) Act 2018 and the meaning of “woman” that was set out in that guidance, which is the same meaning as under the Equality Act 2010.”
“Thank you, Presiding Officer, for this opportunity to update Parliament on the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the For Women Scotland appeal. The Scottish Government, of course, accepts the judgment of the Supreme Court. It is a significant legal ruling, and it is right that we take time to consider it carefully. Before I turn to the details of the judgment, it is important to recognise the tone and the temperature of the surrounding debate, which concerns real individuals in our community, our workplaces and our families and which has often been deeply distressing to them. It should be clear to all of us in the chamber, regardless of our view on any of those matters, including the judgment last Wednesday, that the situation has had a very significant impact on many people.”
“Should he wish to have a meeting to discuss what more can be done not only for community development projects but for other areas in which island communities might want further changes to be made, I would be more than happy to discuss any funding flexibilities that we can provide or improvements that we can make in the scheme that he mentioned and in other areas. The Presiding Officer: That concludes portfolio question time. Project Willow”
“Shirley-Anne Somerville: Liam McArthur raises a very important point, and I want to reassure him that no decision has been taken to close or end that fund. As I mentioned in my original answer, a healthy number of pipeline projects have already gone through the initial expressions of interest stage and have been invited to progress. I recognise the point that Liam McArthur makes and the importance of the types of projects that he mentioned, not only for his constituency but for other parts of the country. I will be happy to update him further in writing.”
“Those projects rely heavily on the rural and islands housing fund but, although councils and housing associations benefit from resource planning assumptions that provide at least some security across elections, no such guarantees apply to community development projects, which may face a potential cliff edge next year. If such projects are forced to cease work during an election year, they lose valuable time, expertise and resources. Given the urgency of the housing crisis in communities such as Orkney, community development projects cannot afford to see progress jeopardised next year, so will the cabinet secretary take steps to ensure the continuity of the rural and islands housing fund through 2026 and into 2027?”
“The demand-led £30 million rural and islands housing fund continues to play an important role in providing support to community organisations, private landowners and others to deliver affordable homes where there is identified need, and it complements the significant delivery in rural and island areas by councils and registered social landlords through our mainstream affordable housing supply programme. My officials continue to actively support a significant pipeline of projects in the rural and islands housing fund system in order to maximise the number of projects that gain tender approval for delivery of affordable rural and island homes through the fund. Liam McArthur: The cabinet secretary will be aware that community development projects are key to tackling the housing crisis in rural and island areas.”
“That demonstrates that it is possible to have a system that is both robust and humane.”
“This year, the Scottish National Party has set aside £30 million for an invest-to-save scheme. Can the minister say in what areas the Government will be looking to make savings in the social security portfolio? How much is she estimating to save as part of that process? Shirley-Anne Somerville: Social Security Scotland and all parts of the Government are looking seriously at the proposals that we can take forward for the invest-to-save fund, which is an exceptionally important piece of work. To reassure the member, I point to the fact that, when we compare the administration costs of Social Security Scotland with those of the Department for Work and Pensions, once pensions costs have been taken away—in other words, if we look at the benefits situation—we see that Social Security Scotland comes out of that comparison very well.”
“Based on the Scottish Fiscal Commission’s latest forecast, the Scottish Government anticipates spending £8.9 billion on social security in 2029-30. Following the United Kingdom Government’s spring statement, updated block grant adjustments have been calculated by HM Treasury. They show that the Scottish Government will now receive £408 million less funding through the BGA in 2029-30 as a result of the UK Government’s announcements on welfare reform. The updated BGA forecasts show that £6.9 billion of the expenditure in 2029-30 will be covered by social security block grant adjustments; the remainder will be found from the Scottish Government budget. Craig Hoy: In a bid to plug what is set to become a £2 billion benefits-induced budget black hole, the Scottish Government says that it will reform public services.”
“At that time, we talked about the work that has been done under the leadership of the chief planner, particularly on stalled sites and brokerage, which is already paying dividends. As the member will be aware, the planning hub also has a responsibility for and focus on offshore wind. However, we are moving forward with work on stalled sites and brokerage. We are working with Homes for Scotland on individual sites to ensure that, where something can be done, it is being done. I point the member to the number of planning applications that have been passed but for which the sites are not being built on. We are working with Homes for Scotland to understand that because, when a planning application has been passed, it is preferable if it is built out, for the private development and for the affordable homes that will be attached to it.”
“Starts and completions are down for the third successive year, private sector starts are at their lowest level since 2013 and we have a cumulative shortfall of more than 100,000 homes since 2008. The industry body Homes for Scotland says that “urgent action” is required on planning and regulatory reform to try to progress matters. It has raised the issue that, four months on from the Scottish Government announcing a housing planning hub, there have been no tangible outcomes to date. When will progress be made? Shirley-Anne Somerville: A matter of weeks ago, I had the pleasure of participating in the housing to 2040 strategic board meeting, where I had the opportunity to discuss the planning hub with Homes for Scotland and other members of the board.”
“We are progressing a series of strategic and targeted actions to support the delivery of more homes at pace, with a particular focus on unlocking stalled sites and providing brokerage. Good progress is being made across the 23 actions in the Government’s “Planning and the Housing Emergency—Delivery Plan”, and we are working in close collaboration with industry and other stakeholders. The 2025-26 budget includes £768 million for the affordable housing supply programme, helping to tackle the housing emergency and contributing towards our target of 110,000 affordable homes by 2032. Since 2007, we have supported the delivery of more than 136,000 affordable homes. Murdo Fraser: The statistics do not paint an impressive picture.”
“Of course we will work on the fiscal sustainability of the Scottish Government overall, including on social security, but, as well as talking about big numbers, the Conservatives need to talk about people and be up front with people when they are talking about cuts. They are talking about cuts for some of the most vulnerable in our society.”
“She talked about the numbers in relation to our investment in social security—and it is an investment—so let us be clear that that goes to those on low incomes, disabled people, carers and those who receive support through winter fuel benefits. Sue Webber criticises the Government for spending on people on low incomes, disabled people and carers. I wonder where exactly she would like to see that money being taken from. What group of people would the Scottish Conservatives like to take from? We spend more money because of the Scottish child payment. Is that what she would like to see cut? We spend more money because we have additional payments that go to carers. Is that what she would like to see cut?”
“Sue Webber: The Scottish Fiscal Commission’s budgetary forecasts highlight an ever-growing gap between the amount of money that the Scottish National Party Government receives to finance devolved benefits and the amount of money that it spends. In 2023-24, the Scottish Government spent £198 million more on devolved benefits than it received from the UK Government. In just three years, the gap is expected to triple to £619 million. In terms of performance and progress, does the cabinet secretary believe that that is sustainable? Shirley-Anne Somerville: Sue Webber raises an important point about the sustainability of expenditure on social security.”
“As an executive agency, Social Security Scotland is part of the Scottish Government. Oversight arrangements are in place in the form of a portfolio accountable officer, who scrutinises performance and progress against aims and objectives. Social Security Scotland provides regular statistics and publishes an annual report on accounts, alongside a report from Audit Scotland. The charter measurement framework provides evidence on delivery of the commitments in our charter. I receive updates on performance from the chief executive, and the agency’s effectiveness is clear. Its latest client survey shows that 90 per cent of people rated their experience as “good” or “very good”.”
“Imposing austerity on the backs of disabled people and their carers is disappointing at any time, but it is particularly disappointing when it comes from a UK Government. I am deeply concerned about the direction of travel of the UK Government’s child poverty task force, whose credibility has been drastically undermined by the changes that have been announced. I will continue to press for meetings with the UK Government at ministerial and official levels so that we can discuss those issues and work with disabled people and their carers to ensure that there are no changes such as the ones that have been planned by the”
“Poverty campaigners are crying out for the backward Labour UK Government to get its priorities right and look to Scotland instead of slashing benefits and putting renewed financial pressure on devolved budgets. Will the cabinet secretary provide an update on any communication with her UK counterparts to ensure that our work to eradicate child poverty in Scotland is not undermined further by Westminster austerity? Shirley-Anne Somerville: David Torrance is quite right to point out the impact on the Scottish Government budget and, most importantly, on individuals, by whom I mean disabled people and their carers. That is why the Scottish Government’s first priority is to call on the UK Labour Government to scrap the proposed changes.”
“The United Kingdom Government’s planned welfare reforms prioritise spending cuts over the welfare of sick and disabled people. I am disappointed that it chose not to engage with the Scottish Government before announcing those reforms. Initial indications are that the changes will reduce the block grant funding that we can expect to receive for social security benefits in 2029-30 by £408 million. Given the scope and scale of those changes, I am urgently seeking clarification from the UK Government on its proposals and how they will interact with the devolved benefits. David Torrance: New analysis from the London School of Economics has found that the UK Government could lift 700,000 children out of poverty overnight if it were to match Scotland’s investment in social security.”
“Foysol Choudhury is quite right to point out the value of volunteering to the individual, the third sector and our communities, but it is right that it is done in a way that respects, encourages and supports volunteers. I would be happy to meet the member, in whichever fashion he would like, to discuss those matters further. Social Security (Impact of Spring Statement) 3.”
“Will the cabinet secretary advise how the Scottish Government is ensuring that funding for third sector organisations supports volunteers’ involvement that is aligned with the principles of the volunteer charter? Will she join me and representatives from volunteer organisations at the next meeting of the Parliament’s cross-party group on volunteering to discuss the issues that the sector faces? Shirley-Anne Somerville: The Scottish Government encourages the use of the volunteer charter, which was developed by Volunteer Scotland and the Scottish Trades Union Congress and sets out the 10 principles for the foundation of a good volunteer experience, exactly as the member mentioned.”