It is a pleasure to open the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour. I thank the committee and its members for their report. It is an in-depth and considered look at a topic with many strands, and the committee has done well to pull them all together. I also thank the many witnesses who contributed to the committee’s inquiry. The sheer breadth of their expertise is impressive and has provided us with a considerable resource as we proceed to consider these matters.

It is clear that the creation of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 was a watershed moment. It not only signalled the effective end of the immediate Brexit process, but inaugurated the new and uncomfortable era in which we in the devolved Parliaments and Assemblies of this country now find ourselves. The committee’s report does a good job in highlighting the tensions that are at play between the devolved institutions and Westminster, and it provides constructive commentary on how those tensions might be mitigated in the future.

It is necessary to look back briefly at how we got into this situation. It was clear to everyone that certain powers would be repatriated when the UK left the European Union. It would therefore have made sense for the UK Government to engage with the devolved Governments and institutions to arrange how that would work in the context of the devolved settlement. The fact that it did not do so and we are now in a situation of considerable tension within the devolved settlement illustrates that devolution works best when Westminster and the devolved nations work together, rather than apart.

I hope that future Governments learn the right lessons from that experience. It is unfortunate that we find ourselves in a situation in which an act of the UK Parliament was created despite the withholding of legislative consent in Scotland and Wales. However, we are where we are. Scottish Labour remains committed to devolution and to allowing it to work well. Let me move on to the tensions that are set out at the heart of the report and the committee’s suggestions on how they might be resolved.

On the tension between free trade and regulatory divergence, the committee’s view appears to be that the UK Government has got the balance very wrong. We in Scottish Labour agree. We agree that there needs to be room for Scotland to innovate in policy and in its economy, and that the UK Government has come down too harshly on the side of being prescriptive about what must be done in devolved areas. We are concerned that, in effect, the 2020 act reinforces the Tory free-market view of the world and stifles Scotland’s ability to set its own standards in public procurement practice.

On the principles of non-discrimination and mutual recognition, Scottish businesses, particularly in the agriculture sector, could be put at risk if the Tories pursue their worst regulatory instincts and insist on lowering the standards to which we have become used over the past few decades. However, I am pleased that the committee, having examined tensions in that regard, underscores the importance and economic benefit of open trade across the UK.

I note that the committee heard examples of complete or near-complete integration of supply chains within the UK. It surely follows that the imposition of trade barriers within Great Britain, which would happen eventually under the Scottish Government’s plan for independence, would cause significant disruption to such supply chains and the wider economy. Certain members might not like to hear that, but it is the logical consequence of there being such deep integration in our economies.

The report makes it clear that there is room within the common framework to work through some of the tensions that the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 has caused in the devolution settlement, but it also highlights the risk of creating a power imbalance between executive and legislative functions across the UK. That is a crucial point. It is perhaps not surprising that it is committees of this Parliament and the House of Lords at Westminster that are highlighting the tensions and distinct lack of transparency in the intergovernmental system.

To put it simply, members of this Parliament and other legislatures across the UK need to be able to see and comment on the processes to do with the common frameworks, and so, too, do other stakeholders in the economic and regulatory environment. We cannot possibly repair confidence in our devolved settlement if all the work to do so is done in the dark, away from the eyes of people with an interest in the system and how it is supposed to function.

I am grateful to the committee for all its work in bringing those concerns to the Parliament. Labour members look forward to engaging with continuing work to address the matter in future.

Thank you, convener.

Both, I would say, but mostly financial entitlements.

It is perhaps for Linda Richards or Vivien Thomson. I can see Linda shaking her head.

No, thank you.

Good morning. I share the pain that Micheleine Kane has spoken about. I have one question for her. What could we do with the social security powers that we have in Scotland to help kinship carers?

My second question is for all the panel members. What barriers exist to kinship carers gaining the benefits to which they are entitled, and what problems exist with the current system of entitlements?

Good morning, panel. I want to go back to a topic that my colleagues have already asked about. I guess that my question is for any of our witnesses. What are the barriers to informal kinship carers gaining the benefits to which they are entitled, and what do you see as the problems with the current system of entitlements?

I raise the case of my constituent Anne Sinclair, who, last October, after waiting seven months for diagnostic procedures, was told that she has an aggressive form of endometrial cancer, for which she is still awaiting treatment, due to the omicron wave.

The First Minister will be aware of the importance of early diagnosis in the successful treatment of cancer. Does she agree that Mrs Sinclair’s situation is not good enough? What assurance can she give to my other constituents who are waiting for a cancer diagnosis that they will not be left in a similar position?

What discussions has the Scottish Government had with the Lothians and Scottish Borders police regarding their capacity to deal with reports of violent crime in the area?

After the powerful statement from Pinar Aksu, I have a small question. Given the squeeze on local authorities, do the witnesses think that the current level of third sector support is sustainable?

That question is for Pinar Aksu or Hassan Darasi.