���˿���

The question is, that motion S6M-14682, in the name of Shirley-Anne Somerville, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

I thank all members for their patience.

Following today’s proceedings, the clerks will prepare a draft report, and the committee is invited to decide whether to consider that draft report in private at our next meeting. Do members agree to do so?

Members indicated agreement.

It is good to have you here. I think that this is the first time that I have sat on a committee with you, and I am looking forward to it.

Agenda item 2 is consideration of a Scottish statutory instrument. As the instrument has been laid under the affirmative procedure, it can come into force only if the Parliament approves it.

I welcome to the meeting Shirley-Anne Somerville, Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, and the following Scottish Government officials: Owen Allen, team leader, winter heating benefits and welfare fund; Julie McKinney, head of social security strategy, welfare fund and winter benefits; and Stephanie Virlogeux, lawyer, legal department. I thank all of you for joining us today.

Following this evidence-taking session, the committee will be invited under agenda item 3 to consider the motion to recommend approval of the instrument. I remind everyone that Scottish Government officials can speak under this item but not in the debate that follows.

Before I invite the cabinet secretary to make a short opening statement, I also remind members—indeed, everyone—that legal proceedings on winter fuel payments are active. Therefore, under the Parliament’s sub judice rule, members should avoid making any statement about the subject matter of those proceedings, although I should say that the rule does not restrict consideration of legislation. Members and witnesses should therefore focus their remarks on the regulations—specifically the regulations that we are considering today—and avoid straying into wider matters that relate to the legal proceedings.

I invite the cabinet secretary to make an opening statement.

Good morning, and welcome to the 28th meeting in 2024 of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee. We have received apologies this morning from our convener Collette Stevenson, so I am afraid that you are stuck with me as deputy convener.

I apologise for not being in the room this morning. Had I anticipated that I would be required to convene, I would have been there. No discourtesy was intended. David Torrance, who is the Scottish National Party substitute member on the committee, might or might not appear this morning.

Agenda item 1 is a declaration of interests. I welcome to the committee Liz Smith, who replaces Roz McCall—I thank Roz for her valued contribution to the committee. Liz, as you are a new committee member, I must ask whether you have any relevant interests that you wish to declare.

I am not sure about that. I am sympathetic and am tempted to agree, but the regulations and the guidance will be what was intended by the 2019 act. There is nothing untoward in having guidance follow the passing of a statutory instrument.

However, if the regulations are not annulled, there is nothing to prevent the minister spending a bit more time with the committee before any guidance comes into force. That would be helpful to the committee and the democratic process.

If the regulations are annulled, we will still be left with a franchising system, but one that will be significantly inferior to what we will have if they pass.

The guidance will be an underpinning assurance that public interest is at the heart of the matter, and that the independent panel will make decisions in a prudent, proportionate and appropriate manner. It is really important that the guidance is put in place and that franchising comes into existence—which I suppose it is already. Not having guidance would weaken our franchising system, irrespective of what people would prefer an alternative franchising system to look like.

Can I get a bit more clarity about your position? If we do not implement the provision, do you envisage that we should still have a check and balance in the system beyond simply removing the role of the traffic commissioner? In other words, would we bring in a new provision that the Conservatives think would be appropriate or, as others have suggested, would we just not have the check and balance in the system?

I appreciate that intervention from Mr Lumsden, because it gives me an opportunity to say that I do not believe that the process is inferior. The regulations will help to bring franchising into existence and enable the powers that are outlined in the 2019 act to be used. The debate that we are having is about whether there could be another way to do that.

I asked the minister whether the Scottish Government would continue to monitor what is happening elsewhere in the UK and beyond and whether, if the Government came to a view that there could be another way to do things, it would be myopic or open minded. His response was that the Government would be open minded. On the basis that the process will be inferior if the regulations are annulled, I will not support their annulment.

I would ask Mr Lumsden what his policy position would be if the regulations do not pass. Would it be to replace them with different checks and balances in the system, or would he want to remove the checks and balances? That goes to the heart of what we are talking about, because that was not articulated by the member when he proposed the annulment—he was silent on that issue. I am happy to take another intervention if Mr Lumsden can clarify what his preference would be—at the moment, we just do not know.

It is a worry for me if we start to change the goalposts on franchising without knowing what other people are intending. We could come out of a new legislative process with a weaker, rather than a stronger, commitment to franchising. I think that we have to let the regulations pass into law and retain the strongest possible franchising system that we can. If others want to look at a different system, we have elections in 2026 and I suspect that franchising will be an issue then.

Irrespective of whether the Government supports the motion, realistically, we all know that there will be draft legislation to review franchising in autumn 2026. Given that SPT could be ready to put something to a panel in winter 2026, I would not want to take the risk of annulling the regulations.

Is that a very concise way of saying that the Scottish Government will take into account people elsewhere’s experiences of raising issues with independent panels that are not necessarily—albeit that I do not want to use this word—competent? I suppose that some of the narrative around this would be that, if you are dissatisfied with an outcome, you do not like the panel. Is the Scottish Government confident that lessons that need to be learned will be learned during development of the guidance?

Okay.

Get Glasgow Moving has a live petition, which is not with the committee as yet, although I suspect that it might end up with us. I thank it for its briefing and dialogue ahead of today’s meeting. It asks for two things that appear to be contradictory: it wants to fully enact the franchising provisions of the 2019 act, which the instrument seeks to do today, but it also wants a speedier, more streamlined and easier system to secure franchising.

I am not speaking for Get Glasgow Moving—it will be watching the meeting carefully and will speak for itself—but, similar to what Michael Matheson said, if we complete the powers of the 2019 act, will the Scottish Government continue to monitor what is happening elsewhere, learn lessons from that and, if required, reflect and change course? In other words, it will not be a myopic Scottish Government that passes the instrument and says, “Job done”, but will continue to review what is happening elsewhere.