Seòmar agus comataidhean

I think you meant to say that the Scottish Parliament is not one of the most powerful devolved institutions in the world, as demonstrated by the Supreme Court decision. I think that what has not lived up to stakeholders’ expectations is the devolution settlement.

We have been very clear that the bill will not be delivered during this parliamentary session. I will give some examples of what we cannot do, using the UNCRC incorporation bill as an example. There are major pieces of legislation on education and on children’s rights that are not covered—and that is with the “powerful” Scottish Parliament that Ms Gallacher is content for us to have. I do not think that that leaves incorporation of the UNCRC in a robust place. Certainly, not as many children’s rights are protected as I wanted to see. Meghan Gallacher may be content with that, but I certainly am not. However, we have to work within scope, and I respect the Supreme Court’s judgment.

I will explain where I would like to be able to get to. Ms Gallacher and I can trade thoughts on whether this is the most powerful devolved Parliament—we can have that debate—but I am not entirely sure how that moves forward our ability to increase the scope of what we are entitled to do in protecting rights. I am happy to have that discussion—or the Parliament can genuinely work with the Government, across political parties, to see how we can deal with the Supreme Court judgment in a way that increases that scope. I hope that Ms Gallacher and I would agree that the Scottish Government should work within scope, but that scope is exceptionally limiting, as shown by the example of the UNCRC incorporation bill. I am not happy with that, and I hope that Ms Gallacher is not happy with it, either. Let us see what we can do together to include more rights than we have been able to. Having demonstrated what is not included in the UNCRC incorporation bill, that is not a place that I would want to go with a human rights bill.

That last point, about rebuilding trust, is the important one for me, because I have heard directly that trust has been severely dented. When I looked at what we could do to ensure that people were aware of what was happening, one of the huge challenges was the limitations that presented themselves in relation to the programme for government. I could not tell groups of stakeholders what was in the programme for government, or we would have been in more difficulty in another way, but I totally appreciate that that led to a very difficult set of circumstances when the programme for government was introduced.

We undertook work to try to get the message out as much as possible. I met the Scottish Human Rights Commission to update it on our decision on the bill, and officials met the Human Rights Consortium Scotland on the day of the programme for government’s publication to update it on our decision. Other letters were sent because that was the quickest way, on the day of the PFG’s publication, that we could inform as many people as possible.

I will give another example of how I took that work forward in my diary. Shortly following the PFG’s publication, I spoke at the inaugural human rights conference, which was attended by more than 150 civil society and human rights stakeholders, to hear directly from people.

One of the key points for me to demonstrate is that we will not have 18 months of inaction, but 18 months of action that is different from what stakeholders may have wished for. One example is our work on the mainstreaming strategy. That was also linked to the development of a human rights bill moving through to become an act, but it can still continue without that.

On the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Act 2022 and the issue of a right to food, members will be aware that there is a proposed member’s bill that touches on that area. I have met the member concerned to see whether there are ways in which we can learn more about what is planned for that bill, and officials are keen to work with the member on that to be able to see what the art of the possible is. However, we are at the very early stages of that work, so I would not want to either raise or dash expectations; we need to see what is actually proposed in that bill and then work out the practicalities. That is one of the areas in which we have turned quickly—I hope—to be able to demonstrate that, while we will still wait for the human rights bill, we will take forward those discussions.

On the frustrations of disabled people, I am very conscious that disabled people’s organisations were telling me that the bill as it was proposed to be introduced did not go far enough—I heard that very clearly. As I said in my opening remarks, our ability to incorporate, given the current situation and the powers that we have, made for a weaker bill than I was comfortable with. One of the points of seeking a longer timeframe for the process is to see what can be done about that.

I again point to the limitations of what was to be covered in the human rights bill around incorporation. I point to the frustrations that members raised in their speeches in Parliament when we had the reconsideration of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill—we heard about all the acts that were not going to be included because of the difficulties around scope as a result of the Supreme Court judgment. I can absolutely see those types of discussions happening once again around the areas that the human rights bill impacts on. I am not comfortable with that, because we have now seen the limitations of what the Supreme Court judgment means in reality for legislation that is within scope.

I again go back to the point that, for the first time, we have an opportunity to consider that those limitations might not be the case. As I said in my opening remarks, relations with the UK Government have changed markedly, but both Governments need time to work out the practicalities of that. That is an important part of the process that we need to go through, because I do not want to have another debate, as we did during the UNCRC bill reconsideration final stages, in which members list things that cannot be included.

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.