Seòmar agus comataidhean

Can you say anything about the Scottish Government’s in-principle position on extending statutory instrument protocol 2 to non-former EU areas?

Good morning, minister, and good morning to your team. Your officials helpfully provide the committee and subject committees with weekly updates of the instruments that are expected to be laid in the following two weeks. I wonder whether you can provide an indication of the anticipated volume of any SSIs that are likely to be laid between now and Christmas, and the lead committees that they are expected to go to.

Given that some SSIs are much longer and more complex than others, it is particularly useful for this committee, as well as the subject committees, to be given as much advance notice as possible when there will be instruments that are large and complex. Do you know whether any such instruments or sets of instruments are in the pipeline? If not, will you commit to keeping the subject committees and our committee up to date on the progress of any such instruments?

Following on from that, minister, what updates can you provide on the discussions that your Government has had with the UK Government on proposals to grant UK ministers delegated powers in devolved areas and the use of consent requirements for such powers? Have those discussions taken into account our position in relation to the scrutiny of powers within devolved competence?

How are discussions regarding that going with the UK Government? I know that we try to rise above party politics when dealing with those issues, but I am wondering what discussions you have had with the new UK Government and how those are going.

In the light of the cabinet secretary’s contribution, I will reflect further and will not move amendment 11.

Amendment 11 not moved.

Sections 19 and 20 agreed to.

Section 21—Duty on Commission to publish annual report

Amendment 97 moved—[Shirley-Anne Somerville]—and agreed to.

Section 21, as amended, agreed to.

After section 21

I say, with due respect to the cabinet secretary, that we do not know because we are not having any in-person tribunal hearings here in Scotland. We debated this point previously—when, as happened under the DWP, a person goes to a tribunal and their case is looked at afresh, the tribunal can often come to a different view.

My policy intent is that there should be a face-to-face hearing unless the claimant does not want that to happen. That puts choice—what the claimant wants—right at the heart of things. That is why I lodged amendment 14. The evidence on paper and in practice shows that the tribunals service is not doing that. That is why we need the amendment. I do not think that it would have any unforeseen consequences. It would bring back dignity, fairness and respect, which, this morning, the committee seems to have decided that it no longer believes in.

Are you comfortable with someone who has been awarded a benefit and whose circumstances have not changed being sanctioned simply because they have not returned a piece of paper to Social Security Scotland? Do you think that that is treating people with fairness, dignity and respect?

I welcome the Government amendments. When the minister closes on amendment 97, I wonder whether she will confirm that no body similar to SCOSS has to provide public accounts that have been audited, and that such a duty would take SCOSS beyond other bodies.

I will be honest. When we were putting through the original 2018 act, I was a bit of a sceptic about SCOSS. It felt to me as though it was going to be just another talking shop or another body that was not going to play a particularly positive role in the Scottish landscape. However, I am a sinner who has confessed and now have turned 180 degrees on that. I welcome the work of SCOSS. It is an important tool in the landscape. It picks up some of the gaps that we as a committee do not have time for, and it brings expertise to the process that we as a committee sometimes do not have. I would seek to give it greater power in regard to the work that it does. That would be for it to decide, however, not for us or the Scottish Government to instruct.

I was struck by what the cabinet secretary said about SCOSS being able to report to ministers and Parliament when it is requested to do so, either by the Scottish Government or possibly by the committee. I would like SCOSS to decide what it should look at.

Amendment 11 would also give SCOSS greater power to look at acts that have been passed and to do post-legislative scrutiny. There is a general view across the Parliament that we are not very good at doing that. I accept that that might come with extra resources required, but we need to make sure that the primary and secondary legislation that we are passing is the best that it can be and I believe that SCOSS plays an important role in that. To give it greater powers by future proofing the bill for future years and generations is an opportunity that we should not pass by, so I ask the committee to look favourably on amendment 11 and support it.