Social Security Committee

Meeting date: Thursday, May 2, 2019

Official Report 574KB pdf

Correspondence

Agenda item 3 is correspondence from the Finance and Constitution Committee.

I refer members to paper 3, which is a note by the clerk and a letter from the Finance and Constitution Committee, and papers 4 and 5, which are related Scottish Parliament information centre briefings. The Finance and Constitution Committee wrote to all subject committees on 25 March 2019, with a view to exploring

“a more co-ordinated approach with other Scottish parliamentary committees to developing the Scottish Parliament’s scrutiny role in relation to the new powers arising from the UK’s withdrawal from the EU”.

It has asked for views on three areas: legislation, common frameworks and international treaties.

Paragraph 8 of the note by the clerk suggests what the committee might wish to say in its response. I might put that on the record shortly, but before I do, would members like to comment?

Perhaps an obvious point to make is that it should not be the case that the agreements to be reached between the UK and Scottish Governments rest just with Scottish ministers: it is important that the Scottish Parliament also has a role. Its role has been substantially truncated and trodden on during the progress of Brexit, but the Parliament has an on-going duty to undertake the maximum possible amount of scrutiny, especially when powers have been agreed between the two Governments. It is probably less relevant for this committee than it is many others, but I am very supportive of the idea that we do the maximum possible scrutiny, using anything that allows us to do that flexibly.

I am a wee bit cynical about the Sewel convention, given that the UK Government’s stated position in court is that it was merely a “self-denying ordinance”. That level of contempt is often shown by the UK Government, but I am generally very supportive of the proposal.

I am content with what has been suggested. Paragraph 8 of paper 3 says:

“In such circumstances, in responding to the Finance and Constitution Committee, the Committee may wish to support the recommendations of the DPLR Committee in its report on the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill and that, as a matter of principle”

—this is the key bit—

“the Scottish Parliament should have an opportunity to scrutinise the exercise of any legislative power relating to devolved social security powers. Further, that where a power in relation to devolved social security is to be exercised by a UK Minister alone it should only be with the consent of Scottish Ministers and finally that a process is put in place whereby the Scottish Parliament is able to scrutinise any proposal by Scottish Ministers to give their consent to the exercise of the powers by a UK Minister, in advance of the consent being given.”

To me, that means that this Parliament should do robust scrutiny in advance at all times. I am content with that position.

Are members content to reply to the Finance and Constitution Committee’s convener, Bruce Crawford, along those lines?

Members indicated agreement.

That being the case, we move to agenda item 4, under which we will continue in private our consideration of evidence on social security support for housing.