Chamber and committees

Okay.

The guidance for 2023-24 requires local authorities to be accountable for the funding as set out in their grant letter. That is to be assessed using the education outcomes for Scotland’s looked-after children, the national improvement framework and the framework for recovery and accelerating progress. The commitment to children in care is that every child who is in care will have access to intensive support that ensures that their education and health needs are fully met. Will the minister confirm how many children in care had those needs met fully in 2023-24?

I am grateful to Rona Mackay for being generous with her time. My intervention is about the monitoring of secondary legislation, which was mentioned in the previous contribution. The Scottish Government’s response is that perhaps committees should take part in the consultation on the development of secondary legislation. Do you think that it is appropriate that the body that is going to scrutinise something should take part in the consultation on creating it?

That is an interesting question, given the round-table meeting that the First Minister held yesterday and the long discussions that we have had, when considering electoral law and other topics, about our approach to the use of language. It is interesting to pick up on something that Roz McCall said in her speech and that the convener mentioned—the use of language such as “skeleton”, “headline” and “enabling”. A lot of the language that is used to describe something is chosen according to where one sits on the argument.

That brings me to an important point. Putting aside party politics, there is a great danger that power corrupts and that absolute power corrupts absolutely. I do not in any way level that accusation against the current Scottish Government—yet—but the acquisition of power can become very comfortable and very easy. When we are able to read the Covid inquiry reports, we might well see indications of that having happened. One of the Parliament’s duties is always to hold against the growth of power of the executive.

I whole-heartedly agree with the convener on that. I compliment the convener, the committee members and the clerks for the language that they have used about when and why such powers would be needed. There is clear sensitivity to the fact that there are circumstances in which actions have to be taken. However, we have to exercise care that those powers do not remain with the Government. The committee—rightly, I think—chose not to go there, but the questions that the committee raised and considered are very important for the rest of this parliamentary session.

I am now desperately conscious of the time, but I invite the minister to expand on a few interesting responses that the Scottish Government made to the report. I will use the numbering of the recommendations that the Government used in its response.

First, when the committee invited the Government to talk about the limited circumstances in which framework bills should be used, it specifically used the words “very limited”—language that the Government had accepted in a previous recommendation. However, interestingly, in the Government’s response, it talked about a “flexible approach”. I wonder whether the Government could tie itself down further by agreeing that such bills should be used in incredibly limited circumstances.

I am conscious of the time, but I will talk for a minute or two longer to facilitate a changeover of those in the Presiding Officer’s chair. I will briefly mention two other things.

The Government seems to be resistant to post-legislative scrutiny and the concepts of sunset clauses and reporting clauses. It pointed out that those things are acceptable, but it then drew attention to the fact that they should be used by committees only in a very limited way. I think that the Government said that because of the bureaucratic problem of monitoring things going forward. However, one of the great powers that Parliaments around the world are developing relates to the use of post-legislative scrutiny—not necessarily even by the Parliaments themselves—in order to continue to hold to account those for decisions that were made. When errors or omissions in legislation—or, indeed, its brilliance—should be highlighted, that can be done through post-legislative scrutiny. I wonder whether the minister could articulate whether there are concerns about post-legislative and pre-legislative scrutiny.

I am conscious that I am well over my time, for which I apologise. I will draw my comments to a close for the moment, but, in my summing-up speech, I will perhaps invite the minister, without notice, to come in on one or two of the matters that I have mentioned. I apologise to the minister for that.

I compliment the committee on its report. Does Stuart McMillan agree that having a definition of framework legislation, however flawed it might be, is very valuable in enabling us to consider the different steps that might need to be taken with regard to the scrutiny of framework bills as opposed to other bills?

It is a pleasure to contribute to this interesting debate. Before I get into the motion and the amendments, it is important to frame the debate correctly. We are sitting in this devolved Parliament discussing a reserved matter, and we are talking about a consultation paper that is exactly that—a consultation paper that seeks the contribution of the public and other groups in order to seek answers and support the development of the UK Government’s policy.

As a number of members have said, this debate is a missed opportunity to discuss a profound issue, which is the reform of social security and how that sits in a jigsaw that the Scottish Government and this Parliament have full responsibility for, including health, education and transport, to mention just three areas that have been discussed.

People’s lives in Scotland are complex and complicated, and the debate is a missed opportunity to discuss the interactions between waiting on a health waiting list or being unable to get a GP appointment and the challenge that is felt by a young person who is becoming disengaged from school and sees no future in the usual map into adulthood that others follow.

The opportunity to discuss transport questions has also been missed. It gives me great pleasure to hear so many MSPs raise local issues in the debate, given the challenges that are faced by people I represent in East Lothian with regard to the number 26 bus service and the fact that a village that has a growing population has lost access to public transport for people to get to work.

All those issues sit in a framework of the challenges that people face. The “Pathways to Work: Reforming Benefits and Support to Get Britain Working Green Paper” addresses exactly what it contains in its title. It presents an opportunity to reshape the social security system in a way that supports and encourages people into good work, while reducing the bureaucracy that is faced by those who are already in receipt of social security.

It is important to recognise, as others have done, that many of the areas that are addressed in the green paper are devolved to the Scottish Parliament and, therefore, will not be affected by the proposed changes. However, the proposals in the green paper aim to create a more supportive environment for all, regardless of the application of devolved powers.

I welcome the £1 billion commitment for employability services across the UK. That is a significant investment that will provide necessary resource to help individuals find and sustain good work. Programmes such as the work and health programme have already shown success in supporting people with disability and health conditions into employment. Well-paid, secure employment is the most sustainable route out of poverty.

I commend the UK Labour Administration for its efforts to, for example, increase the national living wage. A full-time worker earning the national living wage will see their annual income rise by more than £1,000, which will provide much-needed financial relief.

In addition, the Employment Rights Bill aims to improve workers’ rights by ensuring fair treatment and protection against unfair dismissal. That will benefit millions of workers across the country.

The green paper specifically seeks views and opinions on how employers can be assisted to follow the existing legal requirement to make reasonable changes so that disabled people can work, and on how that can be taken forward. Those are important questions that need to be asked to shape the position in the future.

A number of members have pointed out that there is a massive challenge coming down the line with regard to those who are economically inactive. In Scotland, 84,000 young people are not in work, education or training. That must be a significant concern. Indeed, the figure now for 16 to 24-year-olds—at 37.6 per cent—is greater than it was in 2008-09, at the time of the economic crash, when it was 30.1 per cent. Both figures are unacceptable, but the current rate of economic inactivity is more than just a seedling—it is a growing tree of a future catastrophe that Scotland faces.

I welcome initiatives such as developing the young workforce, which was the youth employment strategy that aimed to reduce youth unemployment by 40 per cent by providing tailored support, which target it achieved early. Support through activity agreements, vocational training, modern apprenticeships and graduate apprenticeships has led to notable successes, but several aspects of those initiatives can and should be criticised. I look to the Scottish Government to work on those issues.

A significant number of employers are unable to take part in employer engagement. The rate of participation has decreased and the quality of vocational education has gone down. The long-term impact, particularly in terms of the regional disparities that have occurred across Scotland, has not been monitored or supported.

I am conscious of time, so I will just say that the SNP Government must address those criticisms so that it can enhance what is in place and make sure that the impact is positive. We must not only equip young people with the skills that they need to succeed but help to build a more inclusive and skilled workforce.

As we move forward with the reforms, let us ensure that our policies respect the value of work, that they are fair and that they protect the most vulnerable—those who are unable to ever work—and let us work together to create a society in which everyone has the opportunity to thrive and in which nobody is left behind.

It is a pleasure to contribute to this interesting debate. Before I get into the motion and the amendments, it is important to frame the debate correctly. We are sitting in this devolved Parliament discussing a reserved matter, and we are talking about a consultation paper that is exactly that—a consultation paper that seeks the contribution of the public and other groups in order to seek answers and support the development of the UK Government’s policy.

As a number of members have said, this debate is a missed opportunity to discuss a profound issue, which is the reform of social security and how that sits in a jigsaw that the Scottish Government and this Parliament have full responsibility for, including health, education and transport, to mention just three areas that have been discussed.

People’s lives in Scotland are complex and complicated, and the debate is a missed opportunity to discuss the interactions between waiting on a health waiting list or being unable to get a GP appointment and the challenge that is felt by a young person who is becoming disengaged from school and sees no future in the usual map into adulthood that others follow.

The opportunity to discuss transport questions has also been missed. It gives me great pleasure to hear so many MSPs raise local issues in the debate, given the challenges that are faced by people I represent in East Lothian with regard to the number 26 bus service and the fact that a village that has a growing population has lost access to public transport for people to get to work.

All those issues sit in a framework of the challenges that people face. The “Pathways to Work: Reforming Benefits and Support to Get Britain Working Green Paper” addresses exactly what it contains in its title. It presents an opportunity to reshape the social security system in a way that supports and encourages people into good work, while reducing the bureaucracy that is faced by those who are already in receipt of social security.

It is important to recognise, as others have done, that many of the areas that are addressed in the green paper are devolved to the Scottish Parliament and, therefore, will not be affected by the proposed changes. However, the proposals in the green paper aim to create a more supportive environment for all, regardless of the application of devolved powers.

I welcome the £1 billion commitment for employability services across the UK. That is a significant investment that will provide necessary resource to help individuals find and sustain good work. Programmes such as the work and health programme have already shown success in supporting people with disability and health conditions into employment. Well-paid, secure employment is the most sustainable route out of poverty.

I commend the UK Labour Administration for its efforts to, for example, increase the national living wage. A full-time worker earning the national living wage will see their annual income rise by more than £1,000, which will provide much-needed financial relief.

In addition, the Employment Rights Bill aims to improve workers’ rights by ensuring fair treatment and protection against unfair dismissal. That will benefit millions of workers across the country.

The green paper specifically seeks views and opinions on how employers can be assisted to follow the existing legal requirement to make reasonable changes so that disabled people can work, and on how that can be taken forward. Those are important questions that need to be asked to shape the position in the future.

A number of members have pointed out that there is a massive challenge coming down the line with regard to those who are economically inactive. In Scotland, 84,000 young people are not in work, education or training. That must be a significant concern. Indeed, the figure now for 16 to 24-year-olds—at 37.6 per cent—is greater than it was in 2008-09, at the time of the economic crash, when it was 30.1 per cent. Both figures are unacceptable, but the current rate of economic inactivity is more than just a seedling—it is a growing tree of a future catastrophe that Scotland faces.

I welcome initiatives such as developing the young workforce, which was the youth employment strategy that aimed to reduce youth unemployment by 40 per cent by providing tailored support, which target it achieved early. Support through activity agreements, vocational training, modern apprenticeships and graduate apprenticeships has led to notable successes, but several aspects of those initiatives can and should be criticised. I look to the Scottish Government to work on those issues.

A significant number of employers are unable to take part in employer engagement. The rate of participation has decreased and the quality of vocational education has gone down. The long-term impact, particularly in terms of the regional disparities that have occurred across Scotland, has not been monitored or supported.

I am conscious of time, so I will just say that the SNP Government must address those criticisms so that it can enhance what is in place and make sure that the impact is positive. We must not only equip young people with the skills that they need to succeed but help to build a more inclusive and skilled workforce.

As we move forward with the reforms, let us ensure that our policies respect the value of work, that they are fair and that they protect the most vulnerable—those who are unable to ever work—and let us work together to create a society in which everyone has the opportunity to thrive and in which nobody is left behind.

I go back to the cabinet secretary’s response to my colleague Paul O’Kane. In her statement, the cabinet secretary talked about the Scottish Government successfully defending its guidance twice. That seems to have arisen because the Scottish Government followed the EHRC’s advice. Does the cabinet secretary have any concerns about the quality of advice that the Scottish Government is receiving when it is just taking into account another body’s legal advice, and will she look at that?

To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the impact of the reported rising childcare costs on families, particularly those on low and middle incomes, in light of recent research by the Coram Family and Childcare charity. (S6O-04533)