Chamber and committees

Thank you, minister. I have no other questions, convener.

The committee has heard—as, I am sure, many individual MSPs have heard—that there are pressing issues for care right now and that we cannot wait for the national care service. Is all reform of the sector on hold while the bill is being considered?

It is a pleasure to close the debate for Scottish Labour. I thank the committee and staff for the work that has gone into the report, which is on a complex subject. I also thank the people who gave evidence to the committee to allow the report to be produced for the Parliament’s benefit; their contributions are much appreciated.

We have heard from my colleague Sarah Boyack about how the Sewel convention has come under threat in recent years and is in urgent need of further clarity, particularly when it comes to secondary legislation.

The committee report is clear that Brexit has been a significant shock to the relationship between Westminster and the devolved nations. The witnesses who were heard by the committee painted a picture that showed how the initial cases of breaking the Sewel convention for reasons of urgency have, in effect, made it easier for the convention to be broken down. However, as the report also makes clear, the convention was built on unstable ground to begin with.

The phrase “not normally” was perhaps always destined to end up as the subject of contention. However, it is Brexit and its associated legislation that have provided the pressure that has shaken the convention. Alasdair Allan made that point very well.

If our devolved nations are to function together again after the strained recent years, a renormalising of relationships is required. Sarah Boyack has already highlighted some of the ways in which Scottish Labour believes that that could happen. As she noted, there needs to be greater transparency in how intergovernmental relations happen; otherwise, we are just substituting devolved Parliaments for devolved executive supremacy.

As the committee has highlighted in this and other recent reports, the common frameworks between the devolved nations need to be reinforced but, crucially, they also need to be answerable to the devolved Parliaments. That will be particularly important as the nations diverge. I recognise Willie Rennie’s optimism about the lack of divergence. However, my colleague Katy Clark highlighted how it could happen in relation to procurement.

As a current example, the First Minister attended the inaugural Prime Minister and heads of devolved Governments council on 10 November. What has been said about that in this Parliament? What was said at that meeting by the Scottish Government, on behalf of the Scottish people? Do they not deserve to know? Do we not deserve to know? I have said before that the Parliament cannot operate in the dark, but we are again being asked to do so. Although that is not an inevitable consequence of Brexit, Brexit has fostered the development of that culture of executive secrecy.

As Martin Whitfield and Jenni Minto have suggested, we as parliamentarians should have a form of solidarity with our colleagues in the other devolved Parliaments and in the Westminster Parliament. I am grateful to Jenni Minto for highlighting recent engagement through the interparliamentary forum.

It is in all our interests that such meetings and discussions do not take place behind a veil of secrecy. We are elected to represent our constituents’ interests, and it is in our constituents’ interests not only that the common frameworks operate effectively but that the discussions that affect them are transparent and open. The public will be able to have faith in the devolved settlement only if they can see how it functions.

I sincerely hope that both the UK and Scottish Governments will take that to heart in the coming years, as we try to find the best way to navigate through our new international context.

Edinburgh has recently seen evidence of the damage that the reckless use of fireworks can do in conjunction with antisocial behaviour. Now that there is a legislative framework for a licensing scheme, can the minister give assurances that Police Scotland has the necessary resources to enforce the law as it was passed by the Parliament?

We have seen the closure of Edinburgh Filmhouse and the loss of the Edinburgh International Film Festival. The current economic crisis is affecting Scotland’s cultural landscape, and the withdrawal of this year’s winter festival fund will only intensify the problem for the cultural sector. What good does it do for the cabinet secretary to be flying around the world promoting Scottish culture if cultural institutions and festivals in his constituency are closing down for good?

Good morning, panel. I have a very small question. Is there anything missing from the bill that would be required to give effect to these principles?

Again, I have a general question. Will the charter have a particular effect, or is it more of a public relations exercise? I will ask Paul Traynor.

Anyone from the panel will do, but Suzanne Munday has talked quite a lot about getting involved with ethnic minorities. I have worked with you before, so it is nice seeing you again. My question is quite general: is there anything missing from the bill?

Thank you. Does anyone else want to come in? Does anyone feel that there is anything missing from the bill?

I am running out of time, as I have a lot to go through.

What that agile approach has produced so far is a minimum viable product to onboard the initial social security benefits. As we have heard, it has automated only two so far, and too many benefits still rely on the DWP systems. What we do not know is how easily the system can be scaled, how well a scaled-up version will function and, crucially, how much any of that will cost. We already know that IT costs for Scotland’s social security system have soared to more than £250 million, from initial estimates of £39 million. Jeremy Balfour noted those additional costs.

When we on the Labour benches raised those questions in May’s debate, there was no answer from the Scottish Government on any of them. I suspect that that is because it does not have the answers. Audit Scotland certainly does not seem to think that it does. The consequence of that is that the Scottish people are being asked to take much of this purely on faith. Again, we need to note the looming £760 million black hole in the budget for Scottish social security benefits, as identified by Audit Scotland.

We cannot take on faith alone such a large and important part of the functioning of our social security system. The Scottish Labour amendment also notes the problems with take-up of the devolved benefits, as mentioned by my colleague Pauline McNeill. Pam Duncan-Glancy rightly noted that that could be solved by automation, but it has not yet been. The minister noted in his opening remarks that Scottish Labour’s amendment engaged in “wishful thinking” in suggesting that automation had proceeded faster, yet he also said that the Scottish Government is not quite where it wants to be on the take-up of benefits.

Surely, that raises the question of why the Government has presented us with a motion declaring a job well done. Put simply, it is far too early for the Scottish Government to congratulate itself on matters of devolved benefits. For that and many other reasons, I commend the Scottish Labour amendment as a dose of reality.