Chamber and committees

The debate is, of course, about what we can do now given the challenge that we face, to support some of the most vulnerable in society with the level of reserves that sit with health and social care partnerships. There seems to be a consensus across the chamber that there should be a removal of non-residential social care charges, which have sometimes been called a care tax, but the debate seems to be about when that should happen.

We need an extensive debate about the Scottish Government’s proposals for a national care service. I remind Gillian Martin and others that, as proposed, it will be a centralised service. I have campaigned for a national care service but the national care service that I campaigned for would be a not-for-profit care service that respects the role of local government.

That is not primarily what the debate is about. We know that there has been a slashing of care practices, that care charges are an issue, and that there has been a withdrawal of respite care. The motion proposes an end to all non-residential social care charges in the current financial year. It is not about the future configuration of care in Scotland, but it is about priorities and what we think that the Parliament should be prioritising.

The negative impact of Brexit on Scotland and on the whole of the UK is clear, as is the Conservative Government’s failure to work with all the devolved institutions. Will the cabinet secretary outline what he can do to ensure that legislation on matters such as agricultural subsidies, for which it is clear that there is devolved responsibility, is brought before this Parliament as soon as possible? What work is being done on how, for example, public procurement will be affected, and what legislation can this Parliament enact?

The Sheku Bayoh inquiry, which, of course, relates to a police-related death, started taking evidence seven years after Sheku Bayoh’s death. It is currently in the first of four stages, and I understand that it may take four years to report. How will the cabinet secretary ensure that the recommendations of that substantial inquiry are implemented?

Are other crimes beyond drug driving affected by the issue? I understand that, in November, the Government paid to outsource 30 per cent of testing to commercial forensic services, to allow about 900 drug driving cases to be dealt with. Is that a long-term solution or is it the plan to return to an in-house service?

I was not going to come in on this issue, convener.

Thank you for your comprehensive introduction, commissioner, which addressed some of the issues that I was going to ask about. You gave us an explanation of the lead-up to the creation of the draft code of practice and the consultation process, and it sounds as though there was a high level of consensus in the discussions on what should be in the code. Were there any contentious issues? What might be the contentious issues for the public? Did you think that any issues might be contentious before you had the discussions, even if it turned out that there was consensus among those who were involved?

No. Your response is really helpful. I suppose that that highlights some of the issues with the technology. If people thought that it was 100 per cent accurate, they might be comfortable with it, but the risks of it going wrong will always be an issue.

You talked about keeping the process under review through annual compliance assessments. How will you ensure that the process is robust, that you really engage and that you hear the difficult voices and not just those of the people who are already part of the system?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app did not work. I would have voted yes.

No, there is no particular reason for that. We would welcome representation from that party. As I said, it is important that there is an understanding and recognition of the fact that there might be a range of views within the group. I suspect that there is probably already a range of views on many issues among the members who are listed, and that range might expand. It is a case of grappling with the issues and having the discussion in a way that is less heated than might be the case in the chamber—a genuine exchange of ideas and information. I hope that the group will be a forum in which that can happen.

Some members of the proposed group are very keen that we use it as a vehicle to find out more about what is happening in the European Union and to foster direct relations with European politicians and parts of the various European structures—not just the European Union—to find out more about what they are doing with regard to guest speakers and other events that would provide information and a better understanding of what is happening in other parts of Europe.

The group’s focus will be partly determined by what the members of the group want to do and the events that they want, but the group will be pan-European rather than focused on any specific issue. If a lot of work was already happening in the Parliament or in another cross-party group on one particular area, that would be an argument for our focusing on something different. I imagine that that would be how it would develop. We might well have some joint events, which I hope would be successful.

That is an extremely helpful question. The answer will depend partly on the appetite of the cross-party groups in question. Among those people who are currently involved in the work to establish the proposed cross-party group, there is very much a willingness and a desire to work with existing cross-party groups.

To use the example that has been given—education—Erasmus is a massive issue, and the organisations that are already involved in the proposed cross-party group are disproportionately in the education sector. So, in the early days, that would be a big issue on which we would need to work with other cross-party groups. We would attempt to be very sensitive to the work that is already taking place and to work collaboratively. If another cross-party group was already leading on an issue, that would be an argument that perhaps we should focus on another area.

The post-Brexit issues are potentially massive, and I have no doubt that there will be a continuing debate about those. For example, some people are arguing that there should be a softer form of Brexit and that we should rejoin the single market. Those debates might or might not become big debates over time, and I would hope that there would be a range of views within the proposed cross-party group—there should not be a presumption that there would be one view. I suspect that we would want to have a range of views and to have that discussion. That is the nature of a cross-party group, and I hope that that is how the proposed group would develop.