Chamber and committees

I thank Lorna Slater for her question, which highlights the concerns that exist about the use of framework legislation. There is absolutely a question about how far into the future we will have to use our crystal ball to work out financial constraints. However, we will not be able to introduce proper legislation that we know will work and will lead to the outcomes that we require if we do not have the right financial memorandum attached.

My constituents Scott and Olivia Lyon recently received the heart-breaking news that their one-year-old son, Blair, has retinoblastoma, which is a rare type of eye cancer that affects young children—roughly 50 children in the United Kingdom each year. Although it can be hereditary, it can also affect a child purely by chance. It cannot be predicted or prevented, and it simply appears as a squint or a glow in the eye.

Given the importance of early diagnosis, Scott and Olivia are determined to raise public awareness. Will the First Minister join me in promoting the visibility of retinoblastoma, thanking the incredible national health service teams involved in care for patients across Scotland, and urging families to make an urgent appointment if they think that there are any concerns?

I raised this issue with the minister in the chamber last May. In her response, she advised me that she would certainly take it away and consider it. However, as we have just heard, families across Scotland are faced with a postcode lottery when it comes to accessing 1,140 hours of funded childcare. When the Scottish Government looked into the issue, what information did it find? What has it done to rectify it in the past year?

I cannot really disagree with that statement, and I thank Martin Whitfield for making it.

I appreciate that the minister provided a speedy response to the report and gave his commitment that the Scottish Government will ensure

“that the Scottish Parliament is provided with sufficient information to understand why a proposed delegated power is considered to be appropriate and proportionate, and how that power is expected to be used.”

That is certainly welcome.

I am pleased to see that the Scottish Government fully accepts the financial memorandum recommendation and is working with the Finance and Public Administration Committee on how it will address the financial consequences of bills.

The evidence shows that providing a definition is difficult, but the report has provided a sensible one. Framework bills should be the exception rather than the rule. Flexibility is essential, but thorough communication at the inception of a bill is also essential. The financial implications should be as detailed as possible and provided up front.

Given the encouraging letter from the minister, I look forward to seeing how the recommendations progress to ensure that the Scottish Parliament produces the best laws possible for the people of Scotland.

I am delighted to open this committee debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives and to note the report that the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee produced following its inquiry into framework legislation and Henry VIII powers. I know that it has been said that this is a dry and dusty topic, but I actually find it extremely interesting.

I thank everyone who took the time to respond to the call for views or to provide evidence for the inquiry. As the convener has said, our thanks also go to the clerks and the legal team for their support and hard work throughout the process.

The inquiry came about because there has been a steady rise—or the perception of such a rise—in the utilisation of secondary legislation as a convenient way of passing laws. It has been suggested that it provides supposed flexibility in allowing legislation to be amended without the lengthy process of ensuring that every detail is written in the bill, and in making it more adaptable to societal change and helping with delivery. However, that comes with the downside of less Parliament scrutiny and a vagueness in the accompanying financial memorandum.

Most people who gave evidence to the committee pretty much agreed that there had been a steady increase—or a supposed increase—in the number of framework or skeleton bills, which was certainly an interesting starting point. We heard evidence along the lines of, “We don’t know how to define it, but we know it’s happening and we think it probably shouldn’t,” or, “We have concerns that it produces bad law, but we know it works some of the time.” Some told us, “We think framework bills should have a narrow scope but, equally, allow for flexibility.” Finally, some said, “We don’t really know how best to change it, but we think it needs changed.”

Members have to admit that that is an interesting remit at the commencement of an inquiry. Given that starting point, I am delighted with the work that the committee managed to do to get into the minutia and to reach the roots of problems that stem from the lack of detail in bills and from the inadequate funding set out in financial memorandums as a result of that lack of detail. The committee has made some very sensible and achievable recommendations for the Scottish Government.

I will highlight a couple of notable suggestions. First, the committee considers that legislation should, except in very limited circumstances, be set out in a high degree of detail. The minister mentioned that. In the very limited circumstances when a framework approach is taken, it is essential that, when the bill is introduced, there is a full justification of why framework provision is appropriate.

Secondly, the committee suggested that all financial memorandums should include an estimate of any costs arising from delegated powers provisions, based on how those powers are expected to be, or might be, used by the Administration, and it called on the Scottish Government to keep committees updated throughout the legislative process about the estimated costs arising from a bill.

I will expand slightly on the financial memorandum issue, which is one not only for the Finance and Public Administration Committee, whose convener, Kenny Gibson, highlighted in his evidence how framework legislation presents a significant challenge to effective financial scrutiny. That point was echoed by Lloyd Austin of Scottish Environment LINK, who spoke about how the lack of detail in financial memorandums for framework legislation presents a scrutiny challenge for stakeholders. If we cannot adequately scrutinise the money needed for legislation, we run the risk of passing laws simply without there being sufficient funds to achieve the outcomes that they are designed for. All the policy decisions, discussions, debate and amendments throughout the legislative process will be for naught if insufficient funds are allocated. I see that recommendation by the committee as sacrosanct.

The cabinet secretary and Mr Balfour have made that point exceptionally well. I am not trying to state that my point is connected to that, but there is a need to look at economic inactivity. Getting parents back into work is part of that.

There is a pride that comes from being self-reliant and from providing for yourself and your family. Unfortunately, the holistic approach to moving back to work is simply failing. I call again on the Government to actively make the necessary changes to transport, childcare and education to rectify those issues. It is simply not possible for parents to get back to a fulfilling position or job if we do not get the basics right. So many jobs start before buses are even running, or shift patterns finish when local transport drops to intermittent services. Pre-7 am shift starts are commonplace for hospitality, retail, warehousing and manufacturing, but getting to work is a nightmare for someone who relies on public transport. That needs to change. Childcare provisions for those jobs are completely useless. Drop-off and pick-up times will simply not accommodate shifts, which adds additional expense and unnecessary inconvenience. That needs to change.

Let us say that a parent wants to retrain in a much-needed profession. The courses are there and the colleges will do what they can to modify the times and days for teaching—Fife College has done exactly that—but, once again, the double whammy of transport and childcare will make it almost impossible for parents to attend without being financially penalised in some way. It cannot be right that people who want to work are being forced out of taking a job because we in the Parliament do not fix the issues, especially when it is in our gift to do so.

We can call on the UK Government to reverse its plans, we can wax lyrical about the injustice, and we can sow yet more division, obfuscate and play the blame game but, all the while, the people of Scotland are being pushed to breaking point. Instead of standing in the chamber mud slinging, we should be looking at what we can do to make people’s lives better. We can look at what we control and ensure that what we do supports the people we are charged to work for.

If the solutions have been provided and the outcomes are not only clear but will help people to achieve what they want for themselves, and those outcomes will support our economy, grow Government revenue and reduce the reliance on the state, as well as benefit Scotland and Scots alike, I urge the Government to look at them again.

I am pleased to speak in the debate, and I will direct my remarks to the Scottish Conservative amendment, in the name of Liz Smith.

The amendment correctly highlights the concerns of the Office for Budget Responsibility and the Scottish Fiscal Commission

“about the projected substantial increases in UK and Scottish welfare budgets, the resulting fiscal pressures, and the unsustainability of these budgets in the current economic circumstances”.

That is the fundamental issue before us.

Regardless of which Government proposals we are discussing or the tone of the debate—which has been conciliatory up until now—the debating vigour that is displayed in the chamber and even the verbal tongue lashings and contained heckling will not make an iota of difference to the people of Scotland. That will do nothing to stop their lives becoming harder, nothing to stop them becoming poorer and nothing to reinstall their faith in the decisions that are made by their Governments on their behalf.

In the current economic climate, there are simply insufficient funds. In January this year, the Scottish Fiscal Commission estimated that, in 2029-30, the Scottish Government would be spending £1.7 billion more than it received to pay for devolved welfare. Coupled with Labour’s welfare cuts, that has the deficit growing to £2.1 billion. It will be hard-working, middle-income taxpayers who will be made to pay. They will be squeezed yet again to support the ever-increasing welfare state, and it will be done at the expense of everything that they are trying to do to make their lives and their children’s lives better. Surely, it would be better to increase the number of taxpayers and grow the economy, rather than forcing those who are already stretched to pay more.

We have already heard comments about economic inactivity and, once again, I find myself speaking in a debate on welfare in Scotland and returning to the Social Justice and Social Security Committee report on parental employment. It is a good report, with a clear direction of travel to help parents back into employment. It highlights three specific areas that the Government could focus on that would help parents to get back into work. Not only would parents be earning a living that, statistically, would boost their disposable income and enhance their mental health, but that would add to the Government’s revenue by increasing tax take and reducing the number of those who are dependent on welfare payments.

We agree that welfare payments are an investment in our people and that the returns and benefits for society are evident, but part of that investment must be to better people’s lives in all possible ways—and one of those ways is self-sufficiency. There is a pride that comes from being self-reliant.

Good-quality, accessible and affordable childcare is essential to addressing child poverty and enabling parents to re-enter the workforce. Thanks to the policies of the previous Conservative Government, as has been stated, the cost of a part-time childcare place has more than halved and the cost of a full-time place has been reduced by 20 per cent. I have been highlighting in the Parliament the issues with early years childcare for working parents for some time. Will the minister agree to examine the implementation of the 1,140 hours of free childcare and adjust the policy to ensure that parents can get back into employment?

Will the cabinet secretary commit today to pressurising the UK Government more extensively on this point to ensure the protection of Scotland’s iconic brand?

That is exactly what I want to ask about. The success and growth of Scotch whisky is a story that we are all familiar with. In 2023, Scotch whisky exports, which accounted for 74 per cent of Scottish food and drink exports and 22 per cent of all United Kingdom food and drink exports, were estimated to be worth £5.4 billion.

In my Mid Scotland and Fife region, there are many successful distilleries, including Deanston, Glengoyne, Glenturret, Tullibardine, Lindores Abbey and Kingsbarns, to name but a few. Therefore, it was extremely concerning to hear that, as the cabinet secretary has alluded to, the UK Government’s Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs is still open to the possibility of giving the green light to an application for English single malt to have protected status.

Single malt is seen as a premium product for a reason. It is handcrafted using traditional methods, utilising local raw material—