The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.
All Official Reports of meetings in the Debating Chamber of the Scottish Parliament.
All Official Reports of public meetings of committees.
Displaying 2113 contributions
Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee
Meeting date: 1 October 2024
Paul O'Kane
Good morning. A number of reasons were given when the Government announced that it was not proceeding as expected with the bill. I am keen to hear our witnesses’ views on those reasons. Do you find them convincing or do you think that there were other factors at play? I appreciate that you have touched on those issues in your initial answers. Do you think that there might be other factors at play, such as the budgetary pressures on the Scottish Government, that might explain why the bill is not proceeding?
Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee
Meeting date: 1 October 2024
Paul O'Kane
I turn to Professor O’Hagan. You commented in a previous answer on the Government’s statement about trying to do more to protect disabled people, women and people who experience racism. The Government has stated that it feels that more work is needed in that space. I think you said that you felt that, yes, of course there is more work to be done on those treaties but that we have made progress as well. Can you capture some of that as an excuse for delay? What can be done in that space?
Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee
Meeting date: 1 October 2024
Paul O'Kane
Thank you. I am conscious of the time, so I will bring in Dr Tickell.
Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee
Meeting date: 1 October 2024
Paul O'Kane
That was comprehensive. Thank you.
Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee
Meeting date: 1 October 2024
Paul O'Kane
Good morning. Perhaps quite neatly, we will move on to the Government’s reasons for not introducing the bill. I am keen to understand whether the witnesses find the reasons that have been given for that to be convincing or whether they think that other reasons were at play. With the previous panel, we heard some speculation around budgetary concerns, for example. With this panel, it would be useful to cover the Supreme Court’s UNCRC bill judgment. I will start with Alan Miller.
Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee
Meeting date: 1 October 2024
Paul O'Kane
Would anyone else like to comment?
Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee
Meeting date: 1 October 2024
Paul O'Kane
Does John Wilkes want to add anything on those two questions?
10:45Meeting of the Parliament
Meeting date: 1 October 2024
Paul O'Kane
Will the cabinet secretary explain why, prior to the UK election, the Scottish Government chose to cut the fuel insecurity fund for households and repeatedly cut energy efficiency budgets, resulting in two thirds of houses in Scotland falling below the recommended energy efficiency standards? It would also be useful for people to understand why her SNP colleagues in Westminster failed to vote for the Great British Energy Bill, which will deliver lower energy bills in the longer term and provide investment to make the change that we so badly need.
Social Justice and Social Security Committee
Meeting date: 26 September 2024
Paul O'Kane
I am grateful, convener. The contributions of colleagues have been helpful. As Mr Balfour and others have alluded to, section 16 is a contentious section—in fact, from the evidence that we took from stakeholders, it is probably the most contentious section of the bill, and it is those stakeholders whom I am keen to put at the forefront of our consideration.
I recognise and understand the principle of desiring information for audit. It is important for understanding how the social security system operates, its impact, its inefficiencies and efficiencies, and the support that it rightly gives people. It is also important for identifying where there might be fraud and error—particularly fraud, which can have a criminal element. We should all be concerned about that.
I would not support Maggie Chapman’s approach of removing section 16 from the bill entirely, because I think that important work is being done in this space.
In relation to Mr Balfour’s amendment 10, I recognise the concerns that have been raised. The amendment is challenging, so perhaps we could do further work in consultation with the stakeholders I spoke about to understand how the system might work more efficiently. There are opportunities to look at co-designing regulation, which might give people more input than they would have over something that is in the bill.
Social Justice and Social Security Committee
Meeting date: 26 September 2024
Paul O'Kane
I acknowledge what Mr Doris has just said and what he outlined in his contribution. It is helpful to the point that I am trying to make, which is that, in relation to section 16, I would like to see further work to put on a statutory footing some of the measures that Mr Doris talked about. I say to Mr Balfour that removing part of section 16 by amendment and not replacing it with something else gives us an opportunity at stage 3 to consider what we might do to put some of those things on a statutory footing. That is why the issue is important—I want to put that on the record.
I am sure that the cabinet secretary will want to talk about some of this in her closing remarks, but perhaps we should think about how we could put different requirements, different forms of consequence and different forms of support on that statutory footing. That is why I have sympathy with Mr Balfour for seeking to take out part of section 16 so that we can return to it at stage 3.
The convener is asking for brevity. I could go on, but I will leave it there. I am very grateful.