Chamber and committees

Many constituents have told me that, due to the total lack of NHS provision in their areas, they have been left with untreated dental pain and conditions and that they often miss check-ups that could spot life-threatening conditions such as oral cancer. Does the First Minister realise that she is increasingly overseeing not even a two-tier system, because, for many people in Scotland, dentistry is effectively privatised already?

To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to ensure that people are able to register with national health service dental practices and receive NHS dental treatments in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic. (S6F-00929)

A constituent has recently argued that they believe that the estimated energy bill that they were given during the latest wave of the pandemic was excessive. Has the Scottish Government had any discussion with Ofgem on the use of estimated bills when meter readings cannot be taken?

I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests. As many members know, I come from a background in the food business, and the issue of good food is close to my heart.

I commend the work of the committee in examining the bill and allowing us now to debate its merits. The aims of the bill, as stated in its policy memorandum, sound very noble. They include a commitment to Scotland producing, selling and eating good food, a decline in dietary diseases, and the encouragement of healthy and environmentally sound food production. However, what we have before us lacks significant detail, even when we take into consideration the fact that it is a framework bill.

As the committee’s report notes, Scottish ministers have admitted that they did not have to legislate in order to create good food plans for Scotland but did so because they wanted to give the plans “teeth”. We are left to wonder why the ways in which the good food nation plans might bite are not made clearer in the bill.

I agree with the Scottish Food Coalition’s assessment that there should, at the very least, be a purpose on the face of the bill. That purpose should enshrine the right to food as one of its first principles because, when it comes to good food, surely all else must flow from that. That becomes even more relevant given the cost of living crisis that people now face, but there could be so much more.

The Scottish Food Coalition also suggests including in the bill objectives that are based around the UN’s sustainable development goals.

We could enshrine and protect Scotland’s place as a fair trade nation in the bill, which would ensure that we consider sustainable development across the world when we import the food that we cannot grow ourselves. The fact that there is no such vision in the bill before us feels like a missed opportunity.

There is also a wider point about the Scottish Government’s legislative agenda. The cross-party group on international development last week heard about the prospect of a wellbeing and sustainable development bill, which was also promised in the Scottish National Party manifesto at the last election. Apparently, that bill is intended to enshrine policy coherence on sustainable development in the Scottish Government’s legislative and regulatory approaches to governing. Why, then, are the principles of wellbeing and sustainable development not reflected in this bill? Will it have to be amended by the other bill? It is for all of us in the Parliament to foresee those problems and deal with them at later stages, but I worry that it shows a lack of joined-up thinking in the Scottish Government’s approach to the frameworks that it seeks to build.

We must ensure that framework bills provide adequate room for the Parliament to scrutinise the Scottish Government’s plans. As several respondents to the consultation on the bill have noted, that is another aspect that is sorely lacking from what we see in front of us. It was only a few weeks ago that many of us here were criticising the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 and the reliance on common frameworks that shut this Parliament out of decision making on matters of great importance to Scotland. We should not accept another framework being created that shuts the Parliament out of decisions and only adds to executive power. That must be dealt with in later stages.

My assessment is that the principles behind the bill are admirable but it is held back by a lack of imagination regarding the good that it could do and by a lack of avenues for scrutiny when it comes to the involvement of the Parliament. If we agree to the motion today, we should take with us a determination to repair those issues at the later stages of the bill.

On that basis, I will vote in favour of the general principles of the bill.

Good morning, minister. I do not know whether I missed this, but carers allowance supplement was going to be kept at its higher rate after Covid. Has that just fallen by the wayside?

Is there a risk that budget cuts are a false economy? How do you assess the risk that they will just push more people into the social security system?

My last question is for both of you. Should the minister be open and publish what budget cuts are being foreseen to pay for further social security spending?

My question is for Emma and David. How is it possible to plan six years ahead, given the current levels of economic and price volatility?

No.

Good morning, panel. I have a couple of questions, which I will direct to Emma Congreve first.

How much will other budget lines be affected by increases in social security spending?