Jeremy Balfour
Independent · Scotland
“Does the cabinet secretary agree that ADP helps people to get into and stay in employment? If ADP is cut, more people in Scotland will have to claim other benefits because they are not able to work. I remind members that I am in receipt of higher-rate ADP.”
“I, too, thank Fulton MacGregor not only for only bringing the debate to the chamber but for all the work that he has done as the convener of the cross-party group on social work. I have had the pleasure of being part of that group, which has been very much driven by him. I am grateful for his contribution.”
“As my friend Roz McCall said, there is still a lot to do and this is not the end of the journey. In my short contribution, I will make three simple points from personal experience and from picking up on what the report says.”
“I made my maiden speech in a members’ debate like this one, so it seems fitting for me to conclude in this debate. As I said in the debate last week on the Children (Care, Care Experience and Services Planning) (Scotland) Bill, my wife and I have had personal experience of breakdown of adoption.”
“Given the size of our nation, there must be some way in which we can pull together good practice from across Scotland to do this. Secondly, again, as Martin Whitfield said, there is the financial cost, which is often ignored. It is looked at well in fostering but less so in adoption.”
“She has grown in her role as a leader, and she has taken the bill through in a way that many others could learn lessons from. With both the minister and the former First Minister leaving, and with who knows who being elected in May, my worry is this: who will pick up the challenge after the election?”
The complete record
Every one of 390 lines we hold for Jeremy Balfour, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 8.
“However, we must acknowledge a painful truth: at present, those in pain and suffering with financial means can travel to places such as Dignitas in Switzerland to end their lives on their own terms, but those without such resources are left to suffer. One rule for the wealthy and another for everyone else: that cannot be right. The bill, with strict and careful designated safeguards, would give terminally ill people, regardless of their income, the opportunity to choose a peaceful, dignified death at home, supported and safe. I support the bill at stage 1. I want to be absolutely clear: that is not a position that I have come to lightly. As an NHS clinician, I have cared for many people in their final days. I have sat at the bedside of patients in pain that even the best palliative care could not relieve.”
“That is not the case for disabled people. Disabled people do not have a free choice to make. Because of their disability, those choices are often limited by society. Does the member not accept that the proposal is yet another pressure put on disabled people, who do not have the same choice as those who do not have a disability? Sandesh Gulhane: I am sorry, but no, I do not agree with that. The reason is that, in consistent polling, we see disabled people wanting to have the choice. Also, I truly and firmly believe that it is important for everybody in our society to have that choice. There are colleagues in the chamber and members of the public in the gallery who feel passionately, on both sides. Some strongly support the bill; others are firmly opposed. I respect those views.”
“We remain committed to listening to disabled people and ensuring that their voices shape the decisions and delivery of the funding. Child Poverty Support (Coatbridge and Chryston) 2.”
“The minister rightly criticises the Westminster Government, but does she recognise that the disability plan that she has been working on has been overwhelmingly rejected by disability charities and disabled individuals? Will she re-engage with the disability community in a meaningful way, instead of imposing stuff that it knows will not work in practice? Kaukab Stewart: I thank Mr Balfour for his continued interest and for championing the issue, but I take issue with his view on the matter. We are investing £2.5 million in the disability equality plan, which is an increase of £2 million. That will drive meaningful change in the lives of disabled people. Priorities have been informed by recent engagements with disabled people’s organisations, and we are working to align that investment with the areas that have been identified.”
“We have seven weeks until the summer holidays—-that is seven weeks for something to be done to help the most vulnerable in our society. I say to the minister that people do not want to hear warm words today; they want action so that they can live normal lives. 13:21”
“The Social Justice and Social Security Committee recently produced a report on “Addressing Child Poverty Through Parental Employment”, in which it looked at trying to get women back into employment—in fact, that inquiry started back when the current Minister for Children, Young People and The Promise was a member of the committee. One of the key factors was enabling support for women to allow them to go back to work. However, my constituents are being told that, in the summer, there is no support for them. I am tired of saying this, and I am sure that members are tired of hearing it, but disabled people and their families are being left behind. Children with ASN and their parents deserve our support, and they deserve much better than they are getting now. I urge the Scottish Government and local authorities to deal with the situation.”
“As members are, I am sure, aware, additional support needs are becoming more prevalent. In Edinburgh, the proportion of children with ASN in education has grown to around 50 per cent. Without support, that represents a huge number of parents who are unable to work because of caring duties, and we should not forget that most of those caring responsibilities fall on women. That is obviously not good enough. Apart from the morality of ensuring that everyone has access to meaningful work to support their family, it has economic implications for us in Scotland.”
“One individual who has written to me is a single parent with two children, the eldest of whom has both autism and ADHD. She is classed as her child’s carer but is also pursuing a degree at university. During the most recent school holiday, she managed to secure four days a week for her son at an ASN holiday club, which she describes as a godsend. However, thanks to a decision by the City of Edinburgh Council, she now has only two weeks’ cover for the summer holidays. That leaves her with five weeks with no support at all. How do we expect that mother to cope on her own? Moreover, she has told me that ASN children are, in effect, banned from mainstream holiday clubs because the charities that run them cannot afford to pay the staff who are required for one-to-one care.”
“Third sector budgets are being cut and numerous charities are going to the wall. That is leaving undone the vital services that provide vulnerable people with support when the need for those is getting worse. Nowhere is that more evident than in the gutting of after-school and holiday care for children with additional support needs. For parents of ASN children, after-school and holiday care is not a luxury; it is absolutely essential to allow them to take part in society and, in many cases, to hold a job to support their family. A number of constituents have written to me over the past couple of weeks leading up to the debate. They have been put in an impossible situation because of the lack of adequate support. I will give an example.”
“I, too, thank Michael Marra for securing this afternoon’s debate. I fully agree with the comments of the two previous speakers. I am sure that members will be tired of hearing me say this, but it bears repeating as often as it takes for the message to break through: disabled people are being left behind in Scotland today. I agree that we have gone backwards in Scotland in the past number of years. Pre-pandemic, the situation was already bad, but, since then, the decline has been escalating and getting worse. There is a worrying trend emerging as the country struggles to deal with our current economic predicament. It seems that, if sacrifices have to be made, the Government and local authorities are going to the most vulnerable in our society, and that is often disabled individuals.”
“We will engage constructively in any way that we can to help on those issues. Mr Balfour is another one who comes here and asks me to invest in local services, when his party leader wants me to cut public expenditure by £1 billion. How will that help IJBs around the country? I will not tire of pointing out the total and utter hypocrisy of the people who come here asking for tax cuts and wanting me to spend more money. It is hypocrisy on stilts. A83 Rest and Be Thankful (Landslip Shelter) 6.”
“My question follows on from the previous question. I have been contacted by numerous charities in my region that will have to cease providing vital preventative care for individuals in the Lothians due to the IJB cuts. The First Minister said that he wants to lay aside politics and do the best for the people of Scotland. Will he now intervene in the crisis to make sure that NHS Lothian does not cut the budget to the IJB? That cut would put vulnerable people out of the services that they require. Rather than talk about previous measures, will he now be proactive in working with NHS Lothian and the council to make sure that the IJB gets the appropriate funding? The First Minister: The Government engages with health boards around the country, and local authorities have their own decisions to make as part of the IJB structures.”
“Those are tangible outcomes that people are experiencing today because of decisions that the Government has taken. In 2023, inward investment projects in Scotland grew by more than double the UK average and, for the ninth year running, Scotland remained the UK’s top-performing area for foreign direct investment, outside of London and the south-east. Investors believe in the potential that the Scottish economy has to offer.”
“I was coming on to some of this Government’s achievements, not the least of which is the investment of £6.9 billion in a Scottish benefits system that prioritises dignity and fairness for every human being. In our efforts to eradicate child poverty, we have successfully delivered the Scottish child payment. In tackling the climate crisis, we halved Scotland’s emissions between 1990 and 2022 while growing the economy by 67 per cent, and we have created around 75 per cent of all new woodlands in the UK. We have installed 6,000 public charge points for electric vehicles, two years ahead of schedule. To grow the economy from 2023 to 2024, through investment in Scottish Enterprise, we helped businesses to unlock a record £1.89 billion of planned capital investment. That has created or safeguarded more than 16,700 jobs.”
“In last year’s programme for government, there were a number of bills that were going to benefit the lives of disabled people. Those bills were all dropped over the past 12 months, and there is nothing in the programme for government for 2025-26 specifically for disabled people. You talk about helping the most vulnerable. What in the programme for government will help disabled people, who make up 20 per cent of Scotland’s population? The Deputy Presiding Officer: I remind members to always speak through the chair. Kate Forbes: I assure the member that this Government is absolutely committed to delivering for disabled people. He will not find this Government following in the footsteps of the United Kingdom Government, which has completely deserted disabled people.”
“Mark Ruskell said that we need to give local authorities more opportunities to make public transport work. I absolutely agree, and the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 gives them those opportunities. On road congestion, I agree, which is why I am continuing to engage with the Scottish road works commissioner. I see that I am coming to the end of my time, Deputy Presiding Officer, so I will finish there. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Graham Simpson to wind up—you have up to six minutes. 16:24”
“Will the minister give way? Jim Fairlie: I am sorry—I do not have time today. I welcome the introduction of the UK Government regulations on public EV charging, including those concerning charge point reliability. I urge all charge point operators to adhere to those regulations and to ensure that drivers receive the level of service that they rightly expect. I will try to make a couple of points very quickly. First, I am quite sure that members on the Conservative side of the chamber will celebrate the fact that Fiona Hyslop is in Tomatin today to mark the start of the works. I also remind members, when we talk about the delays in dualling the A9, that the Parliament forced the SNP to transfer funding from the A9 to the trams network quite a number of years ago—that is a point worth making.”
“If he could take us to decision time at 5 o’clock, that would be most helpful. 16:56”
“Some of those organisations may no longer exist—are we seriously suggesting that we introduce primary legislation to change the list again? Finlay Carson: Will the minister give way? The Deputy Presiding Officer: The minister is concluding. Jamie Hepburn: I apologise. I genuinely would have been happy to give way to Mr Kerr and Mr Carson, but my time is running out. I assure the Parliament and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee that we welcome the report. We will continue to respond to any concerns that the Parliament has about proposed powers and we will take forward the commitments that we have made in response to the committee’s report. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Bill Kidd to wind up on behalf of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee.”
“Stephen Kerr: Will the minister give way? Jamie Hepburn: I have very little time to give way. The Deputy Presiding Officer: You have very little time. Jamie Hepburn: I have very little time, so I am afraid that I am unable to do so. I suggest that the terminology is unhelpful. If there is concern about defining such things—since we are seeking to define a framework bill— perhaps we could look for a better definition for such powers. However, when they are put in place in a bill, that must be agreed to by Parliament. Fundamentally, power remains in the hands of Parliament. The powers must not be used for major matters. Invariably, they relate to small things, such as lists of organisations that the primary legislation might have prescribed as having to be statutory consultees.”
“There are multiple examples, such as when we look at the rate of benefits or where we are considering some form of charges, registration fees or payments, as Mr Carson’s committee regularly has to do. Those things might change on an annual or, at least, on a regular basis. Are we seriously suggesting that we bring that back for primary legislation in each and every instance? That would not be an appropriate use of our time. I did not get to speak about Henry VIII powers previously, but I want to focus on that. I agree that that is pejorative terminology, which I do not think is helpful. Mr Kerr remarked that the term is appropriate, because it refers to an English monarch and it pertains to Westminster. I might suggest that that is an interesting, and perhaps unintentional, recognition of the nature of Westminster.”
“Jamie Hepburn: I recognise that, but ultimately that has to be a decision for the committee or Parliament to take in the round. If, ultimately, that is part of the reason why a committee or the Parliament rejects what is laid before it, the Government has to reflect on that. On a number of occasions, our instruments have not even gone to a vote because a committee has raised such concerns that the Government has gone away and thought again. I want to talk about the appropriateness of the approach that we take with secondary legislation. Lorna Slater made the point that the circular economy is an example of where it makes sense to use secondary legislation.”
“When those powers, where they have been granted by Parliament, are exercised, the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee—which Jeremy Balfour sits on, so he should be aware of this—and subject committees can scrutinise any instruments that they are interested in and hold ministers to account on them. The Scottish Parliament can also reject or annul instruments and require the Scottish Government to think again, which, I should say, is not a feature in every parliamentary system. Therefore, I do not agree that the balance between the executive and the legislature in this place is disproportionate. Jeremy Balfour: Without pushing my point, does the minister recognise that the Parliament has a simple yes or no vote on those? There is no way that it can say that it likes most of an instrument but not all of it.”
“Most members have laid out their views on that, rather than, by contrast, obsessing over what is or is not a framework bill. I am happy to engage with Parliament on how we might consider refining our process. Let us reflect on what the process is now. In relation to any bill in which the Government asks Parliament to delegate its authority to take forward and exercise powers, we must lay a delegated powers memorandum in which we seek to justify that request. It is incumbent on Parliament to agree or disagree with that request. The power remains in the hands of Parliament. Parliament can reject or agree to that proposition. I disagree with Jeremy Balfour when he says that the utilisation of secondary legislation does not allow for scrutiny.”
“Jamie Hepburn: I was going to come to that point by Mr Marra, because I think that it shows that our procedures are effective. That is the epitome of why we have parliamentary scrutiny. That bill went to the committee for scrutiny, and the committee raised its concerns about the financial memorandum. I do not think that I need to rehearse the history of where we reached with that piece of legislation. Michael Marra: You are kidding. Will the member give way? Jamie Hepburn: I will not, because I gave way a number of times in my opening remarks. I went to about 16 and a half minutes then and I have only four minutes left now, and I want to respond to the debate. I again make the point that it is rather more important that we focus on our process.”
“It might be the case in other jurisdictions—I cannot speak to that—but I do not feel that, in my 18 years in Parliament, there has been a substantial increase in the amount of what we seem to be defining as framework legislation. Michael Marra: What does the minister say to the point that I made when I asked him to set that number aside and consider the figure of £2.7 billion, which was the underestimation of costs for the framework bill for the national care service, due to the fact that the proposals in the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill were completely uncostable? Does that bill alone not demonstrate the significant risk that Parliament should be guarding against by revising the procedures and reducing the number of framework bills?”
“I turn to what has been claimed about the volume of framework legislation. I have yet to hear any empirical evidence that suggests that we are seeing a substantial increase in the amount of framework legislation in this session compared with previous sessions. Jeremy Balfour was rather dismissive of the notion that I should request such evidence but, if someone makes a claim, it is important they can stand up and justify it. Mr Mountain laid out some figures that relate to the UK Parliament but, as members in this place are all too wont to point out—indeed, as Stephen Kerr often points out—this is the Scottish Parliament and not the UK Parliament.”
“Ordinarily when we are told that, it gives an indication that the debate is vastly undersubscribed, and that I—or if I fail to turn up, Mr Whitfield or another member of the Parliamentary Bureau—might be asked to move a motion to bring forward decision time. It appears that we have avoided that, which indicates that there has been great interest in Parliament in the matter. I congratulate the committee on drafting a report that has captured the Parliament’s imagination—as well it should, because these are important matters. I assure Mr O’Kane that I will certainly take on board everything that has been said during the debate. I do not necessarily agree with all of it, but I will reflect on it. I have already said that I welcome the report, and I hope that people can see that reflected in the manner in which the Government has responded.”
“Jeremy Balfour: That is one possibility, among others. It would probably take greater minds than mine to design it, but it is worth looking at. I thank all the other members for taking part in the debate, which has been interesting. I hope that whoever forms the next Government in a year’s time will not simply forget about the report for another 60 years, but will look at some of its recommendations and take them forward, for the sake of this Parliament and for Scotland. 16:47 Jamie Hepburn: I can assure Jeremy Balfour that it will be the SNP that will form the next Government after the election. I am glad that we have had some time in hand during the debate.”
“What is clear—again, I say this with due respect to the minister—is that Governments will always love secondary legislation and bills that have little detail in them, because it means that the Government is not held to account. The reverse of that is those of us in Opposition do not like and will never like skeleton bills. That is the reality of life. However, there must be a point at which we can come together and seek a way forward for the good of this Parliament and for the sake of Scotland and the legislation that we pass. Martin Whitfield: In the words of the Scottish Government’s bill handbook, the super-affirmative procedure involves “bolt-on” measures that allow additional powers. Perhaps we could invite the Government to allow amendable secondary legislation that uses the super-affirmative procedure to see whether that works.”
“There is no way for any Opposition MSP, or even Government MSP, to amend those regulations. I absolutely accept that the evidence that we took suggested that it would not be easy to design a process that would allow amendment of regulations, but it is possible. It should not be allowed in every circumstance—there would have to be quite a high threshold for it to happen—but it is worth a committee of the Parliament considering whether we can move forward to allow members to amend secondary legislation rather than just have the ability to make a yes or no decision, which is a negative way to do it. I would welcome further discussions on that.”
“I think that the next session of Parliament should look at that again and that, to pick up a remark made by the previous speaker, today may be the start of the journey, rather than its end. During the passage of the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018—I have reflected on it over the past few days—we made the decision that the criteria for who would get benefits would be set out by regulation rather than by having it in the primary legislation, as is the case at Westminster. That was done to provide for flexibility and consultation—the usual remarks that we get from Government. The problem now is that, if any changes are to be made to who can get disability benefit here in Scotland, as a Parliament, we must agree to them all or we must reject them all.”
“That happens partly due to laziness and is a wee bit to do with not wanting to be held accountable by this Parliament. I would much prefer to see the Government doing consultation, getting all its ducks lined up and then bringing forward a bill that Parliament can properly scrutinise, so that we can decide what to amend and what to take forward. That would give far more assurance regarding financial memorandums—a point made by Roz McCall and others—and would also allow Parliament to make choices, rather than the Government. I will concentrate most of my remarks on the subject of secondary legislation and Parliament’s inability to amend the regulations that come before us.”
“That is happening not only in this Parliament but at Westminster, in Northern Ireland and Cardiff, and in other parts of western Europe. As much as the minister wants to see numbers and figures, that is just the reality. One reason for that, as was mentioned by Lorna Slater, is that we live in a society that is different from that which existed 30 or 40 years ago. We have 24-hour news and there is an expectation that people will respond more quickly, although I am not sure that that is a justification for going down the road that we have taken. I have concerns about framework bills and absolutely agree with Michael Marra’s remarks. I am not against consultation or involving stakeholders in legislation—in fact, I think that we should do more of that—but we go wrong when we do that consultation after passing legislation.”
“I begin by thanking my fellow committee members, the clerks and all those who gave evidence to the committee during an interesting process. I confess that today’s debate has not gone quite where I expected it to go. It felt at some points as if I was 40 years back, studying first year law and having some great debate about jurisdiction; at other times I was glad that I was not a member of Edward Mountain’s family, because his holidays seem to be run like military operations and not much fun. This has been a helpful debate and I will reflect briefly on some remarks. Before he jumps to his feet, I say that I am not going to take an intervention from the minister. All the evidence, across almost every jurisdiction in the western world, is that more framework bills are coming forward.”
“Finlay Carson rose— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Ms Slater is, I hope, bringing her remarks to a close. Lorna Slater: By its nature, secondary legislation is more flexible and dynamic, and we are called upon as members to keep up and keep on top of the scrutiny role, using Edward Mountain as our role model for that. 15:55”
“It gives Opposition parties an easy option that prevents progress without them having to take a firm stance on an issue, allowing them to play both sides of the argument with voters. We are all free to vote against legislation, but members should not be given additional powers to sit on the fence and hold up legislation that has been extensively consulted on. Part of being an effective politician is being courageous in saying both what you stand for and what you stand against. Politicians should not be able to stand in the way of progress by way of cowardice. As I have repeatedly said, secondary legislation is often brought back and amended repeatedly, going through the committees and through the chamber several times, as can be seen with the tied pubs legislation, the deposit return scheme and others.”
“He identified that the legislation was coming to a committee. It was not even his committee, but he arranged to be at that committee to ask extensive questions of the minister, who, in that case, was me. He then initiated an effective media campaign to bring the matter to the attention of the public and subsequently forced a short debate in the chamber on the matter. That shows how a member who is not even on the responsible committee can bring effective scrutiny to secondary legislation when they choose to. We could all choose to do that more often. We do not have to give the Government a free pass on secondary legislation; that is up to members. Finally, in respect of the committee’s report, I am not supportive of the idea of the Parliament having a “think again” or “conditional approval” option.”
“The example therefore does not really apply. However, I understand what the member has said, which is that secondary legislation requires a yes or a no. However, the Parliament has the chance to say no, and can use it. Secondary legislation often comes back repeatedly to committees—we saw that with the tied pubs legislation and, indeed, the deposit return scheme, for which secondary legislation repeatedly came back to committees as it was adjusted and changed. We do not get just one shot at secondary legislation—it can be brought back over and over again. We know that that can happen. I want to give an example of effective scrutiny of a negative instrument. Edward Mountain demonstrated that very ably in relation to secondary legislation on deer management, as some members might recall.”
“The member might want to develop this in a moment. One of the problems for Opposition members is that, when secondary legislation is made, we have to either accept it all or reject it all—there is no ability to amend. To take the argument that the member referred to, she might introduce a list of 20 products that she wants to ban, but the Parliament might say that it actually likes 18 of them, but not two of them. The Parliament is then left in the impossible situation of having to say either yes or no. I do not think that the member has identified that difficulty yet. Lorna Slater: I was not using that particular example, but if we are talking about single-use plastics, we would not be able to introduce a list with that many items in one go, because they must all be managed differently and would require different schemes.”
“We are working closely with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to improve the situation. The Deputy Presiding Officer: That concludes portfolio question time. To allow a changeover of front-bench members, there will be a brief pause before we move to the next item of business. Framework Legislation and Henry VIII Powers”
“It is encouraging that the number of teachers in permanent posts has remained stable at more than 80 per cent over the past 10 years. Jeremy Balfour: I thank the minister for his answer, but does he not accept that, under this Scottish National Party Government, permanent teaching jobs have gone from being the norm to being a rarity and that those who are entering the profession now often have to work on difficult, short-term contracts, which means that they cannot get mortgages and have a stable life? Graeme Dey: I hardly think that 80 per cent represents a rarity. I have outlined to Mr Balfour the Government’s commitment to the delivery of permanent posts, which can be seen in its action of providing funding to local authorities, which are responsible for that delivery.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what steps it can take to reduce the number of teachers on temporary contracts. (S6O-04575) The Minister for Higher and Further Education; and Minister for Veterans (Graeme Dey): As Jeremy Balfour knows, teacher employment practices are a matter for local authorities as employers. However, I note that the Government very much values our teachers, and we are doing everything possible to maximise the number of teaching jobs available, including permanent posts. We are providing local authorities with increased funding of £186.5 million this year, as part of our agreement with local government to restore teacher numbers to 2023 levels and maximise the number of teaching posts available.”
“I hope that we can come together to send a very strong message on behalf of disabled people and their carers that this Parliament thinks that the changes that the UK Government plans to make are unacceptable, and I hope that we can unite at decision time to take a strong voice to the UK Parliament against those cuts. Business Motion 17:00”
“I just wish that the UK Government and the child poverty task force would do so. The UK Government’s decisions are another example of a Government with priorities that seem to be all about balancing the books on the back of the most vulnerable in our society. It is vital that the UK Government takes note of the real worry, concern and fear that are being caused by its consultation and, indeed, some of the plans that it is beginning to implement. I wish that the UK Government would listen to the people it is supposedly there to serve.”
“That is exactly why whole-family support is such an important part of our current programme for government and the First Minister’s drive to tackle child poverty. Claire Baker spoke about the UK Government’s child poverty task force. I go back to my point that, although the UK Government can launch a pilot for breakfast clubs—the Scottish Government’s previous budget announced expanded breakfast clubs in Scotland—it cannot use that to say, “Look how great we’re doing” at exactly the same time as media reports yesterday suggested that the child poverty task force will not look to scrap the two-child cap. That is the biggest change that could be made to lift children out of poverty, but it looks as though the UK Government is walking away from that. In the meantime, we will get on with mitigating the two-child cap.”
“That will have an impact not just on reserved benefits but on devolved benefits as well as our health service and social care. Quite rightly, Maggie Chapman noted the impact on carers. We have not spoken about them much in the debate but, of course, the cuts to disability benefits will also impact them. For a household that is affected by disability, there will be a double whammy as both the disability benefits and the carer benefits will be cut. She is quite right to note the disproportionate effect on women and the gendered analysis that must be undertaken when we look at social security. Roz McCall made a number of important points about whole-family support and the need to look at a whole family’s or whole person’s needs rather than just social security.”
“I genuinely do not understand how cutting a young person’s universal credit or their PIP will encourage or support them into work. In fact, it will do the exact opposite. That is the genuine frustration that I have when I listen to Labour colleagues in particular, who say that it is all about employability and encouraging people into work while, at the same time, they are cutting support in a way that will take people away from, and present another barrier to, work. Willie Rennie put it fairly in his contribution when he said that the primary focus of Labour’s green paper is on welfare cuts, not pathways into work. He is absolutely right about that. He is also absolutely right that the financial stress resulting from the country’s failing is being displaced on to individuals or the health service.”
“I go back to my question: if people wish to see cuts to the social security budget, do they wish us to take the money from the 870,000 disabled people who currently receive benefits, the 806,000 people who are in low-income families or, indeed, the 110,000 carers? When we are talking about the fiscal sustainability of social security, the cuts that have been discussed are cuts for those people. Many people, including Paul O’Kane, rightly talked about employment. Although employment is a way out of poverty, as Mr O’Kane said, for many people it is not. The UK Government wants more people to be supported into work, as do I, but it will be cutting support for young people and disabled people, which is a concern. It goes back to the point that Jeremy Balfour made very eloquently in his closing remarks.”
“However, in a spirit of attempted consensus, I note that Craig Hoy is right to say that we need to manage variations between our expenditure and the block grant adjustments that come from Westminster. As we have done every year, we will do that by producing a balanced budget as part of the annual budget process. Members are quite right to say that it is about decisions and choices, but I will add some context. The proportion of the budget that the Scottish Government has chosen to invest in order to enhance the social security offering, over and above the money that we get from the UK Government, is projected to be less than 3.5 per cent of the Scottish Government’s total resource budget in 2029-30. Yes, there is a challenge, but that is the level of the challenge.”