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 am pleased to contribute to the debate. It is an important debate, because it allows members to express their views and opinions about how we operate in this Parliament and how we pass legislation. That is perhaps not something that we always have the opportunity to pause and do. That is why both today’s debate and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee’s work is important.

For the work on its framework legislation and Henry VIII powers report, I thank not only the convener and members of that committee, but all the clerks and all those who have supported the work that Stuart McMillan spoke about in his opening remarks.

We have already heard that many members have experienced frustrations, as I have, during our time in Parliament, when we lodge amendments and attempt to put what we consider to be important details or provisions into a bill, only for ministers to respond that they do not consider those issues to be important enough to put into primary legislation.

I will perhaps reflect on areas where that has happened. For example, we have already heard about the challenges that were posed in pieces of legislation such as the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill.

I am feeling very generous, so I will give way to the minister once more.

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.

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.