Chamber and committees

I am not sure that the minister is listening to the substantive point that I am making, which is that the Government, in particular, should set things out in a bill to avoid confusion or uncertainty about what is the intention behind that bill. The criticism that the Government has not done that in framework bills is levelled throughout the committee’s report, and I think that the minister must take cognisance of that point.

I accept that there has been a focus in the debate on ministers saying that there is a need for flexibility in legislation. It is, of course, important that there is flexibility, but that cannot simply be an excuse for not going through the more detailed process that I have outlined, or for queueing policy up to come in at a later date, rather than dealing with it immediately in the bill that has been presented to Parliament.

Although flexibility and broad powers might be required for legitimate purposes, I encourage the Government to pay particular attention to paragraphs 264 and 265 of the committee’s report, on the use of mechanisms such as the super-affirmative procedure, which Edward Mountain mentioned. The use of such mechanisms is necessary not only to provide adequate scrutiny of secondary legislation but to push the Government to move faster to deliver the action that has been promised through the use of framework powers.

Having been generous to other members, I will now conclude. I again thank the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, and I hope that the Government will listen to what has been said. It is important that members can express their views about what happens in this Parliament and how we can make legislation more robust for the people of Scotland.

I will resist the temptation to relitigate that legislation, but Ms Thomson has put her point on the record. It is an important broader point in the context of the discussion that we are having about what should be included in bills.

When detailed provisions are not included in a bill, that presents a challenge, because the people with whom we discuss legislation, the people whom we consult and the people whom we help to draft amendments that they wish to be made to bills—as is their right as constituents and people who are engaged in public life in Scotland—often say that they are unclear about what the Government’s intention is in its proposed legislation and that they do not know what the Government’s thinking is in the area in question. Even at stage 1 of the bill process, it can be hard to get that out of ministers, to have a proper debate and to reach a consensus. The issue is not simply one of me getting my own way or colleagues getting their own way; it is about the more important question of the sorts of amendments that we seek to lodge on behalf of the people whom we represent.

That is a typically collegiate approach from the minister.

In a Parliament of minorities, which we are told about so often, of course the Government has a right to introduce its legislation. Edward Mountain referred to skeleton bills and jellyfish bills. All too often in this Parliament, legislation turns into Christmas tree bills. When something is not set out in the bill, we end up in a situation in which we go through various amendments to get to the point that could have been better established had we had that more collegiate approach that I am calling for in my speech, which I am sure that the Government will take note of.

I am pleased that the minister has given me the opportunity to say that I have successfully amended bills in this Parliament.

I was just coming on to talk about ADP and PIP and trying to understand our devolved context in relation to ADP. The reforms to PIP are at UK level; we have already explored that in the opening speeches. ADP is devolved to this Parliament, and it is for this Parliament to decide where ADP goes in the future with regard to its sustainability. I accept the points that have been made about the interconnectedness of payments, including gateway payments, which Liz Smith and other members have referred to. There will have to be proper consultation and communication on that from the DWP to the Scottish Government.

I return to employability, because it is extremely important that we have a focus on that in Scotland. At the same time as we have faced the challenges that I was outlining prior to Mr Balfour’s intervention, the uptake rate of the devolved job start payment has been only 21 per cent. In addition, in recent years, there have been significant cuts of around £30 million to the Scottish Government’s employability budget. There is a serious debate to be had about the need for reform of the system more generally, and it is a shame that the Scottish Government is not particularly stepping up to that debate, either today or more widely.

Labour believes in the dignity of secure employment, recognising that it is the most sustainable route out of poverty for those who can work, but that we must protect those who cannot. I encourage everyone to engage constructively in the consultation and the process, even on the reforms that will be carried out at both UK and Scottish levels.

I move amendment S6M-17242.1, to leave out from “calls” to end and insert:

“agrees that any reforms to social security policy must respect the dignity of work, while also being fair and protecting the most vulnerable who are unable to work; notes the Pathways to Work: Reforming Benefits and Support to Get Britain Working Green Paper and that its proposals are currently under consultation; recognises that a number of the areas covered in the Green Paper are devolved to the Scottish Parliament and will therefore not change as a result of the Spring Statement; notes the proposals within the Green Paper to support and encourage people into good work and to reduce bureaucracy for those in receipt of social security; welcomes that this is backed up by a £1 billion commitment for employability services across the UK; acknowledges that well-paid, secure work is the most sustainable route out of poverty; welcomes, therefore, the action taken by the UK Labour administration to increase the National Living Wage and improve rights for workers through the Employment Rights Bill, and is concerned that the disability employment gap in Scotland is wider than elsewhere in Great Britain, that one in four people in Scotland rely on welfare spending from the Scottish Government to cover their living costs and that there are as many as 84,000 young people in Scotland who are not in work, education or training.”

The point that I was about to make is that the green paper contains a range of proposals. The cabinet secretary now wants to pick and choose and debate individual proposals, but, in her motion, she says that she wants to scrap the paper in its entirety and not have a broader debate about the issues that are contained in it.

There are nuanced issues in relation to the cohort of young people under 22. We have to look at how to go about increasing the age at which people receive support and at how they can receive differentiated support—for example, by moving the age from 18 to 16—and at how people are more supported in the round. That is important.

On supporting people into work—I will come on to talk about this—we must ensure that the investment of £1 billion that the UK Government is planning to make is focused on young people. We know that there is a huge challenge with that cohort of young people, because, if they do not work by the time they are 24, it is very unlikely that they will ever work. As I have outlined, it is important that those people who cannot work are given the support that they need to live.

I am concerned that we are not having a rounded debate and that the Government has decided, as set out in its motion, that the green paper should be completely dismissed out of hand. That would mean, for example, that we would not consider increasing the payment rate for the standard allowance of universal credit, which will benefit people who are out of work. It would mean abandoning any proposals to scrap the work capability assessment, which has long been called for by many campaigners who seek reform of the social security system. It would mean failing to progress any proposals to introduce a right to try work, which would allow individuals to attempt employment without the risk of losing the social security that they rely on. As I have said, it would also mean failing to advance the plan to invest £1 billion into employability support to ensure that people are properly supported in sustainable, well-paid employment. I am disappointed that we are not having that broader debate today.

It is right that we focus on what is happening in Scotland. The cabinet secretary made reference to employability and the work that is being done in that regard in Scotland. However, we know that, at present, 84,000 young people in Scotland are not in education, employment or training. We also know, thanks to research by the Scottish Parliament information centre and the Fraser of Allander Institute, that the disability employment gap in Scotland is wider than it is in the rest of the UK. We know that nearly 300,000 working-age people in Scotland are out of work because of illness.

Liz Smith and I have debated the national insurance increase before, as she has with Mr Marra and other members in the chamber. That choice was made so as not to put the burden of taxation on to working people and other individuals and to ensure instead that, for example, the Parliament could receive a £5 billion uplift in the budget. Those are decisions that we have made and that we have debated in the chamber. We must look at the issues and the system in the round. That is what part of the debate today should be about.

I recognise the concerns. If we are to have a serious debate on the issues, I do not think that the Government motion, which effectively calls for the UK Government to scrap the green paper in its entirety, is a particularly credible way to go about it. We should look at the separate reforms that are proposed—the cabinet secretary outlined in her speech her issue with many of them—because I do not think that we can just take the entire paper and throw out everything that is contained in it.

During the debate, we have already acknowledged the complexity of social security and the complexities of having a devolved system and a reserved system that interact and interlock. Liz Smith outlined much of that in a credible way, as she always does, which perhaps helps us to focus our thoughts and comments.

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the reform of social security and employment support. We have debated such issues many times in the chamber. Each time we have done so, I have called for a serious debate on the issues. I have done that consistently throughout my time in Parliament, particularly in relation to the devolved social security system, which we as a Parliament are collectively responsible for and on which the Government brings forward its policies.

There are serious questions to be asked and answered about how we support people into good work and about how our social security systems can be built with resilience for the longer term. We know about the significant challenges that will exist in relation to demographic pressures and wider issues.

I recognise the concerns that have been expressed about some of the proposed reforms, and I acknowledge, as I have in my amendment, the need for consultation and listening. We must ensure that any reform to social security, whether across the UK or here in Scotland, is fair and is balanced by considering how we support people into work, because that is a right and good thing to do—it should be the aspiration of us all in this Parliament—how we help people to thrive when they are in work, and how we support those who cannot or will not work.

It is important that the court’s ruling and the court itself are respected. We should also reflect, as the cabinet secretary did, on the words of Lord Hodge: the judgment must not be read as

“a triumph of one or more groups ... at the expense of another”.

I return to the issue of the legal advice that the Government receives. As has already been raised, this is not the first case that the Scottish Government has lost. It joins a long line of court cases that the Government has lost on not just this subject matter but many others.

Does the cabinet secretary have confidence in the legal advice that ministers receive from the legal directorate? Given this point of reflection, and given the number of legal cases that have now been lost by the Government, will she consider reviewing how legal advice is sought by the Government and how it is delivered and acted on?