³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

I have been very clear in, for example, my discussions with stakeholders that the way in which we had to incorporate treaties on disability did not allow us to do what disabled people’s organisations wanted. That has been a part of our discussion for as long as I can remember since I have been in this post. They were asking us to incorporate in a way that we genuinely did not think was possible if we were to stay on the right side of the devolution settlement.

The discussion then moved on to another question. How far could we get under the settlement as it stood—that is, in the bill as we would have been able to introduce it—or did we have to take a step back and try to change things? Those kinds of conversations with stakeholders about my uneasiness at not being able to deliver what they were asking for—not that I did not want to deliver it—went on for some time.

I have heard directly from many of the organisations about their deep disappointment. They told me that they had pinned a lot on the bill, as the convener has said, because it was the answer to their being able to deliver on human rights obligations. I can absolutely appreciate their frustration—I not only understand it; I share it—that I cannot bring forward the type of bill that I would have liked to have brought forward.

As you heard in last week’s evidence sessions, much of this comes down to some people’s opinion that we could have introduced a bill as intended; could have reset relationships with the UK Government and worked together on solutions; and then could have amended the bill that was going through the Scottish Parliament, all at the same time. I have had that conversation since the PFG was published, and I genuinely and utterly disagree that that was possible. You also heard evidence last week—particularly in the second evidence session—from Professor Andrew Tickell and others that they did not think that that was possible, either.

That was where I was coming from. I just do not think that it can be done at the same time as bringing forward the most difficult and complex piece of legislation that the Parliament has ever seen. Again, I hold to that decision, because of my experience of the reconsideration stage of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024 with what was only quite a small number of amendments.

I appreciate that there was a different UK Government at that time. However, we would be trying to utterly change the way in which two Governments work while at the same time looking at how we could amend the bill. Given how long it took to get that to work with regard to the UNCRC act, I genuinely, hand on heart, cannot see how we could have done that work at the same time as delivering the legislation.

I appreciate that others have come to a different conclusion, but I point to the evidence that the committee took from academics last week. I do not want to speak for them, but the quotations that I have read from the Official Report of that meeting suggest that they, too, thought that that would be an exceptionally difficult, if not impossible, thing for us to do.

I am very keen to continue to work with stakeholders on this area. I have said this before, but I think it important to reiterate that I utterly appreciate that they are tired and frustrated and that we need to build up trust again with regard to the usefulness and purpose of engaging with the Scottish Government on this matter. I need to build up that trust with them.

In my view, we have an opportunity to take forward specific work on the bill and its further development. In my opinion, we do not need a full consultation again—we know what people’s views are—but there are areas that we can continue to strengthen.

There is also a need for us to work differently. A final session of the bill advisory board is coming up, and stakeholders will have an opportunity to sit with me and go through in detail how we will use that time. I do not want to spend too long talking about how we are going to use the next 18 months—I just want to start using them—because that is another crunch point.

We should also remember the work that is continuing. I mentioned the mainstreaming strategy earlier; we are also determined to take forward areas from the second national action plan for human rights—SNAP 2—and further work is on-going on the public sector equality duty. There is work that we can be getting on with in the meantime, and it is important that we keep people updated on that.

However—and I appreciate that this is a difficult thing to ask—I ask people to give us a little bit of time to work with the UK Government in a private space. I am conscious that I do not want to give a list of demands to the UK Government, as that would put the UK Government in a different position. The question is this: how can the Scottish and UK Governments help stakeholders appreciate where we are at different stages? That will be key. I do think that together, the UK Government, the Scottish Government and stakeholders can work well to take advantage of the next 18 months.

With the greatest respect, there is nothing to stop us having such conversations as part of our work over the next 18 months. Those are issues for the committee to address. I point that out again. Taking the right to housing as an example, I am mindful of how many acts of the UK Parliament our housing legislation is based on, and of how many things may be outwith the scope of any bill that is introduced.

Let us have a discussion about the right to food. I have already said that such discussions are on-going. Let us have a discussion about the right to housing. While we do that, however, let us bear in mind all the legislation that would not be within scope—using just the two examples that Ms Gallacher has given.

Mr Balfour’s amendments 12 and 13 would introduce powers to set out key performance indicators in legislation for both Social Security Scotland and the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland. The Scottish Government does not support either amendment.

As an executive agency, Social Security Scotland already publishes an annual report and accounts, in line with the Scottish public finance manual. It must also comply with the Public Finance and Accountability (Scotland) Act 2000.

The 2018 act also requires Scottish ministers to report on the number of people who are appealing to the tribunal. The committee can—and frequently does—hear evidence from senior leadership at Social Security Scotland on matters of operational delivery.

The committee will also be aware that section 15 of the 2018 act requires a Scottish social security charter to be prepared, published and reviewed. The charter was co-designed with people with lived experience of social security and it underpins everything that the agency does. As approved by the Parliament in 2019, the 2018 act sets out the service that people should expect from Social Security Scotland. A revised charter, which was developed by using a comprehensive co-design approach with clients and stakeholders, was approved by Parliament in June.

I repeat my comments from the debate on the previous group of amendments—if the committee would like more information on an aspect, the Parliament already has the power to get it.

I thank members for all their thoughts. Again, I put on the record that I very much appreciate where Jeremy Balfour’s and Maggie Chapman’s amendments are coming from and their concerns.

The Government has met stakeholders since stage 1 on this process, particularly because of the evidence that was given to the committee on it. They were specifically asked whether amendments should be lodged and no stakeholder asked the Government to lodge amendments. I believe that there are ways in which we can continue to reassure those stakeholders about safeguarding without the amendments that are being proposed today.

I go back to the point that I made to Mr Balfour. I simply cannot see a way in which we can audit Social Security Scotland without examining the case load and therefore asking for information from it. Everyone on the committee agrees that there needs to be an audit. This is about how we do the audit and how we ensure that it is robust. Again, I simply cannot see how we can have a robust audit if the process is self-selecting—you will have an audit, but it will not be robust.

Maggie Chapman is right to point out that benefit fraud is low. We know that it is low because there has been an audit, and the purpose of audit is to reassure us and to ensure that we can respond to those who might wish to use misinformation about the level of benefit fraud, or to attack people who come forward for benefits, with evidence to say that that is not a major issue in our area of benefits. However, benefit fraud clearly exists and, where it happens, we must take it seriously.

If Mr Balfour will allow me to, I will take that away and reflect on it. I think that it was Maggie Chapman who made the point that there needs to be more consultation on this, and the whole point about not putting this in the bill itself was to allow that public consultation to take place. I can see where the member is coming from, but I am a bit hesitant because I have committed to having a consultation on this, which people would obviously be able to take part in. However, I will reflect on whether more can be done.

I thank Mr Doris for his kind remarks to my officials. I absolutely concur that the job that they did on section 17 and, indeed, on other aspects of the bill is remarkable, so I thank him for putting that on the record.

With respect to Mr Balfour’s points, we have had many discussions about tribunals over the years, and I am afraid that that is one of those areas in which we disagree on the best way of proceeding. I see where he is coming from, but I made the points that I wished to make during my remarks on the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee’s queries on this area, when I explained the reasons for our decisions. Given the length of my opening remarks, I will leave it there.

Amendment 59 agreed to.

Amendments 60 to 72 moved—[Shirley-Anne Somerville]—and agreed to.

Amendment 73 moved—[Shirley-Anne Somerville].

I absolutely take that point and, if Mr Balfour will bear with me, I assure him that I will get to that. However, the committee has the power to request information.

In addition, allowing Scottish ministers to set key performance indicators for the First-tier Tribunal would undermine ministers’ statutory duty to uphold the independence of the tribunals, which bolsters guarantees of judicial independence that are enshrined elsewhere in legislation. That is a fundamental principle of democratic society. Like Social Security Scotland, the performance and operation of the First-tier Tribunal is already subjected to scrutiny.

On the point that Mr Balfour has raised, he and I have had discussions on that. There has been a degree of frustration about some of the information that he and stakeholders have wished to see; for example, management information is not there for Social Security Scotland to pull, and to do so quickly.

I, too, remember the trips down to Victoria Quay. I was probably responsible for social security at that time, given that I have been for more than half of Mr Balfour’s time in the Scottish Parliament. He will also remember that it was an agile programme and that the aspects that were brought in were always going to require continuous updating and improvements. That was part of the process and was clear from the start. Some of that is about the ability to obtain information and to request information in an easy way that does not, for example, require a lot of manual workarounds.

I hear and appreciate Mr Balfour’s frustration on the issue. As he has already alluded to, I do not think that the way to address that is through primary legislation. I have offered to meet Mr Balfour, along with the senior management of the agency, to discuss the areas on which he feels that more information is required. We will also continue to work on that with stakeholders.

The committee will be pleased to learn that amendment 104 is a minor amendment and that my speaking notes on it are short.

Amendment 104 will allow the provision that sets out the parliamentary procedure for the regulation-making powers to commence the day after the bill is given royal assent. It will remove the need for a set of commencement regulations to be laid for section 24, which would be disproportionate, given that the provision relates solely to parliamentary procedure.

I move amendment 104.