Seòmar agus comataidhean

We all want people with lived experience to be involved in the whole process—there is no disagreement about that—but why could that process not have taken place before the bill was introduced? Would it not have been better to work out the scheme with people with lived experience, so that Parliament could have scrutinised actual proposals, rather than doing it after the bill has been considered, when Parliament will not be able to be involved in the process?

What one difference will the bill make to somebody who is in receipt of social care today or tomorrow? What one difference will it make to their life?

I am sure that the minister will be aware that the Edinburgh Deaf Festival provides an accessible celebration of deaf culture, language and heritage alongside the Edinburgh Festival Fringe. Unfortunately, the organisation has lost its funding from Creative Scotland, which is putting the whole festival at risk. Will the minister intervene to save a festival that works so hard towards the goals of equality, opportunity and community?

I am pleased to speak in the debate.

Several decades ago, I was a member of the Law Society of Scotland and, in fact, my late father was a fiscal for the society’s disciplinary tribunal for many years. It is interesting to hear the various comments that have been made. I also thank all the organisations that have provided submissions over the past number of days.

I will focus my brief remarks on my reflections as a member of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. I am grateful for the evidence that the minister gave us, and for that of others who gave written and oral evidence. There is no doubt that we all agree that there needs to be change from what is happening at the moment.

It is not clear, however, whether the change that we will be making will make things any better. One of the criticisms—my remark is not aimed at the minister, because this was before she was appointed—is that there was, perhaps, a lack of consultation of some key stakeholders before the bill was published and brought to Parliament. The committee heard in evidence that some of the pitfalls that we are facing could have been avoided if the Government had engaged more constructively with the Law Society of Scotland, the Faculty of Advocates and the judiciary.

We have ended up in an interesting place. Senior judges, advocates, lawyers and consumer groups are all critical of the bill. It is interesting that, in her evidence to the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, Esther Roberton felt very let down that the Government had not listened about her work. She felt that that was a missed opportunity.

With regard to the more controversial areas, the minister will be aware that many of those will be covered in the delegated powers that will come after the bill is passed, if it is passed. I am grateful that the minister wrote on three occasions to the lead committee to at least acknowledge that there were problems, and to say that she and the Government would address them. However, we still have not seen amendments, and we do not know the detail of how they will work.

I welcome Karen Adam to her new role. I am interested in her comment that the lead committee might take evidence on some amendments before it decides to vote on them. My concern is that the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee will not have the opportunity to take evidence on amendments that the minister lodges. Perhaps she, along with others who are above my pay grade, can give some thought to whether the DPLR Committee should have an opportunity to take evidence once amendments have been lodged, so that some of the concerns that the whole committee holds could be addressed before the lead committee comes to vote on the amendments.

I hear what Mr Swinney and others have said with regard to the judiciary, but I think that it is important that the Lord President and the whole judiciary are independent. Yes—we have to work together, and I absolutely accept what Mr Swinney and others have said, but it is nonetheless important that, whatever we hear today, we future proof the bill not for the current Government but for future Governments, so that no Government can overreach into the judiciary.

Absolutely—for once, I agree with Mr Swinney. My slight concern, however, is that we are not doing either: we might reach in and take power from the judiciary while not strengthening consumer rights. That is why we need to see what amendments the Government will lodge at stage 2, and why the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee should—I appreciate that this does not happen often—take more evidence after the amendments have been lodged.

I would have preferred the Government to have stopped the bill process, then gone away and developed a bill that would have had far more support—not only from members, but from people outside Parliament. That is not the case, however, so if the motion on the bill is passed today, I hope that scrutiny by the lead committee and other committees will continue so that we can get this area of law right for every consumer in Scotland.

Yes.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am not sure whether my vote was counted; I would have voted no.

No.

In a desperate act of deflection, the Government has decided to hold a series of debates based on its taxpayer-funded vanity projects that postulate what life would be like had it not failed to convince the Scottish people to break up one of the oldest and most successful political alliances in the world. I suggest that the cabinet secretary would have a bright future in fantasy writing, because the paper that has been put before us is about as serious a policy prospect as “The Lord of the Rings”.

For the final time, no.

The paper provides a long wish list of everything that the SNP would implement in an imaginary situation, including increasing universal credit and removing any system of sanctions. That is all well and good, but nowhere does the paper explain how on earth the SNP would pay for it. It claims that all its changes would cost the taxpayer a mere £0.25 billion on top of what is already being spent in Scotland. However, that comes from the same people who are running a devolved system that, as it stands, will require more than £1.3 billion by 2027-28 just to keep the status quo. We are still to hear an answer from the SNP on its plan for plugging that gap.

I allowed Mr Stewart to intervene because he was going to answer my question, but he has simply failed to do so. If there is a secret fourth way that the Scottish Government has left out of its paper for some reason, I would be happy to listen. It can do one of three things: cut benefits, raise taxes or take funding from another budget. I ask the cabinet secretary, which of the three is it?