���˿���

I am unclear whether the minister has inadvertently answered the question that I was going to ask. I might just ask it anyway, so that it is clear in the Official Report.

Some stakeholders have argued that targets should be clearly set out in the bill, but, during an earlier exchange, the minister mentioned that NGOs, for example, were not clear what targets they would like to be set, and she said that some of the science and methodology around how they would be established is still emerging and evolving, so secondary legislation might be a much better way of setting targets. I just want a bit of clarity on the Government’s position on that.

The second part of my question is about whether there might be a different case for consumption targets, because the Scottish Government already publishes carbon footprint information under climate legislation requirements. Might it be possible to introduce consumption targets to the bill?

Those two questions for the minister are intended to mop up any gaps in evidence, convener.

Thank you. That gives a bit of clarity to what was said earlier.

That is helpful. It partially pre-empts my final question, which is good. How could common frameworks be used to support policy coherence and the pace of progress in this area? Could they help to manage divergence? In saying “divergence”, minister, I am thinking about a twin-track approach, because I suspect that the end destination for all four UK nations will be the same. It is about having policy coherence so that, if Scotland wishes to go more quickly, we can do so in a managed way. Do you have any comments on how common frameworks can be used to support policy coherence?

I will try to be brief, convener.

Minister, I think that Mr Fraser is using parliamentary process to promote his member’s bill, which I appreciate, but I suspect that he also supports the order. I will certainly not be supporting the motion to recommend annulment.

I have three questions on the specifics of the order that is before us. It is my understanding that, if the legislation is passed by the Parliament, the powers will be in force by January next year. Is that correct?

I will roll my questions together, as I think that that would be helpful, given the time constraints. Secondly, is there any distinction between commercial and household waste in relation to these fixed-penalty notices? I sympathise with Mr Fraser’s point about a sliding scale of fixed-penalty notices, and the question whether we can evidence a repeat offender, perhaps commercial. Is there any distinction between a householder and a commercial offender?

Finally, I think that there is a feeling in the committee that there needs to be better, more robust data collection across the whole area. Data has to be collected consistently across 32 local authorities, and the courts as well, and it all has to sit in one place.

I have tried to roll up all three questions, convener, so I do not have to come back in. I hope that you got a note of those, minister.

I do not wish to comment.

The committee has become aware of a gap that exists—and, indeed, became particularly aware of it a couple of weeks ago, when we heard from Lucy Kenyon of the Association of Occupational Health and Wellbeing Professionals and Professor Ewan Macdonald. They highlighted the need to collect better and more robust data in the workplace on emerging trends and issues regarding industrial injury and illnesses. Trade unions and occupational health are keen to be part of the partnership that plugs that gap and collects that data, and the Health and Safety Executive—which, unfortunately, is not giving oral evidence to our committee—has a role to play, too.

Cabinet secretary, will you say a bit more about which organisations and bodies have a significant role to play here? Do you accept that there could be a gap? Which bodies, individuals and groups could help to plug that gap in relation to data and emerging trends around such illnesses?

Thank you, Dr Witcher. Those are very helpful opening remarks.

I hope that one of my colleagues will return later in the evidence session to the financial challenges and the relationship between devolved and reserved benefits. I will not take up those cudgels in my opening question—I will be a bit more geekish.

In our predecessor Social Security Committee, which I convened, we used to appreciate reports by SCOSS that made quite significant recommendations to the Government on how it could improve the roll-out and delivery of a whole variety of matters. By and large—I would say this—that seemed to work well. The recommendations were robust, there was clarity and the Government seemed to respond—not always, but by and large—positively and constructively. I am a Government back bencher, and it suits me to say those things, but have I captured things accurately? Is that one of the things that have worked well, or does more need to be done to support SCOSS in that role going forward?

Thank you for that exchange. It was remiss of me not to say that we will have some other questions on the timescale later, but those have been pre-empted. I should have identified that as convener, but we are where we are.

We move to questions from our colleague Paul O’Kane, who is online.

Dr Witcher, it is not often that a witness comes to the committee, identifies the problems, then, in the same response, gives the solution and says that everything has been delivered, so I thank you. I have one brief further question, although I may come back in later, depending on time.

According to the paper that we read ahead of today’s meeting, you are keen that the expertise that is captured in SCOSS is used proactively as well as reactively. Alongside scrutinising regulations and legislation and making recommendations for what should be tweaked, altered, made clearer and so on, I think that you were talking about SCOSS taking a much more proactive role. A pattern is emerging in the interaction between devolved and reserved social security matters, and there is a suggestion that a piece of research—a bit of proactive work in relation to that—would be helpful. Can SCOSS currently not do that because it is not able to do it or is not resourced to do it? You mentioned it in your paper. Could you say a wee bit about that, before colleagues come in with some other questions?

I know that Mr Mason wants to explore the finances underpinning some of this but, before we come to that, I want to check something. Cabinet secretary, you keep talking about the fact that, if the eligibility criteria do not change, the outcomes will not change in terms of who qualifies for and receives the existing benefit or the new Scottish benefit. We heard a lot about the judgments being based on expert opinion and the reasonableness test in the eligibility criteria.

We also heard that the IIAC has identified four conditions relating to long Covid that could potentially allow people to receive benefits, and that is caught up in the process. However, there is a difficulty with that, because the recommendations that politicians and processes rely on experts making are not always accepted—in this case, potentially, by the DWP on behalf of the UK Government. The reason I am putting that on the record is to ask you what parts of the eligibility criteria might need to be looked at again and changed. Should the eligibility criteria always be expert led?