Chamber and committees

I have said that I am not taking any interventions. I have only four minutes.

Is that a uniquely Scottish problem? Of course it is not, any more than it is a uniquely Clackmannanshire and Dunblane problem.

Neil Bibby invited us to look at the record of the Labour Party elsewhere in the UK. Let us do that. Let us look, for example, at Wales, where the Labour Party is actually in power—

I am pleased to be able to participate in this debate, although it has been quite a dispiriting one—I refer especially to Labour members. After 16 years of failure in the Parliament, we would think that there would be some analysis, some understanding of the problem, and some possible solutions. However, we heard nothing about those from Alex Rowley. All we heard was the usual soundbites and attack lines.

Everyone who is involved in bus travel and who has had a constituent come to them about an issue knows that two of the main issues are climate change and social exclusion. However, the causes of some of the problems that we have talked about have been the pandemic, Brexit and, in particular, the recruitment of drivers, which Fiona Hyslop made a point about. For example, every time that Lothian Buses goes on a recruitment spree, every other part of the country loses out in terms of the pool of drivers. Of course, many people—not least people from eastern Europe—who were previously happy to be drivers have been prevented from being a driver because of Brexit.

No. I have only four minutes.

There was not a word about Brexit or the pandemic. Everybody knows that the pandemic has altered people’s work patterns and commuting practices. During lockdown, many drivers sought other jobs and did not return. As I said, Brexit cut off access to another source of drivers. I have seen the shortage of drivers in my constituency leading to reductions in services on a couple of routes—

I am a new member of the committee, so I am not included in what Liz Smith said about the concerns of the committee. I disassociate myself from those remarks.

I am a bit surprised that we have gone down the route of gender recognition reform, but let us stick with that for a second. That policy is in not just the Scottish Government’s manifesto but everybody’s manifesto. Two consultations were undertaken, and the proposals have been subject to more parliamentary scrutiny than any other measure that I can remember in my time in this Parliament. Despite that, at the end of that process we are in a situation in which another Government has said that it will nullify the bill. That is the biggest development that we have seen in public administration or in decision making in the Parliament, certainly since my time here and I think since its inception.

If another Government just steps in, without saying what it thinks is wrong with the bill and says that it will strike it down—incredibly, some members in this Parliament support the UK Government doing that to this Parliament—what is the effect on the civil service and ministers when considering further policy initiatives? That threat has been raised again in relation to a couple of other measures, such as the deposit return scheme. What is the effect on policy making in the Scottish Government of that interference with the Scottish Parliament?

This question might be for the permanent secretary. It may be, from what the committee has heard so far in the inquiry, that these issues, which in my view have by far the biggest impact on decision making in the Scottish Parliament, have been covered already.

Aside from a capricious Government deciding, for political reasons, to try to gratuitously supersede a decision of this Parliament, there are now various instances of legislative consent motions, or the Sewel convention, being ignored, which was not the case not too long ago.

In the early stages of policy development in the civil service in particular, does that have a chilling effect? Do you have to take into account, in addition to all the other factors, the likelihood that some minister in the Westminster Government is going to do something that completely ignores the interests of this Parliament, or is going to increase the likelihood of legal conflict between the two Administrations? Is that part of your thinking, or do you—as the DFM just said—try to zone that out of your thinking at the start?

I completely understand your point and the value of those good relationships, but if that is the case it is very different from the experience of ministerial collaboration. For example, this Parliament is placed in various cul-de-sacs, such as the refusal of a section 30 order—the Parliament has voted for a referendum and it is just ignored out of hand—and the application of section 35 of the Scotland Act 1998.

Compare the situation now with that 10 years ago, when we had the respect agenda, which led to an improvement in relations between different Governments and ministers within them. Nowadays, I have arranged meetings with the UK Government and it has refused to give me entry to the Ministry of Defence to hold the meeting or it has continually refused to answer correspondence.

If the relationship between the civil servants is generally productive but that between the Administrations is not, would that not tend to argue for an independent civil service? I go back to a point that was made in the previous discussion. People can accuse organisations of policy capture when they are funded by the Scottish Government, although, interestingly, the Parliament is funded by the Scottish Government and nobody argues that it has been subject to policy capture. As much as anything else, is the perception not important and would it not be important to say that, as with councils and the Parliament, the civil servants who serve the Scottish Government and the public are independent and answer to them?

None of this is to do with you personally, of course, permanent secretary, although I note that the permanent secretary to the Scottish Government is appointed jointly by the principal adviser to the UK Government—the cabinet secretary—and the First Minister. It is a question of perception, and it is probably less of a question when relationships are productive and constructive. As you say, it probably comes more into view for people because of the constitutional situation and the stand-off.

On the point that was raised previously in relation to the ministerial code and the interference in the Scottish civil service by the Secretary of State, I recently received a letter from a guy called Lord Pickles, telling me various things that I could and could not do and referring continuously to the ministerial code of conduct and the Government’s position. I think that he was referring to the UK Government—he seemed very ignorant of the situation in Scotland. That confusion is surely a matter of concern when it comes to situations where the Secretary of State for Scotland is trying to instruct or countermand some of the things that the Scottish Government is trying to do.

Given that point, given that this Parliament would not settle for its staff being told what to do by the Government or somebody else and given that no local authority would accept that its officials should be directed by somebody else, is it not a better idea just to have a Scottish civil service?

I am advised that I have no relevant interests in the register of members’ interests, but I note that I am a member of the local government pension scheme.

I want to return to the issue of the cross-border situation. I understand the point that you are, legally, responsible only for what happens in Scotland and not for what happens because of failings south of the border. However, there are cases—as I am sure that you are aware—in which young people have been accommodated well away from home, in bed and breakfasts with private security guards outside their door, in some pretty bad situations.

I know that it is your responsibility to ensure that everyone in Scotland has accommodation. However, has there been a rejection in principle of the idea that, if there were available beds, as long as the Government was able to guarantee that the last bed was available, they could and should be available to people from elsewhere in order—to go back to the convener’s point—to help with the financial sustainability of the entire system?

Would that not happen if we had people in the accommodation here in Scotland but there were still some beds available? I know that it is not easy to judge how the numbers fluctuate, but why would we not want to do that?