Chamber and committees

The UK Government’s decision to raise employer national insurance contributions will have devastating consequences for Scotland’s businesses, charities and public services. The not-for-profit Thistle Foundation, which does critical work in my constituency to support thousands of people with disabilities and long-term health conditions, has called the ENICs hike a “catastrophic blow”, with the impact on it leaving an unfunded financial gap of £292,000.

High-volume, low-profit employers are appalled that Scotland’s block grant is being used to offset short-sighted policy making from London. Women dominate Scotland’s workforce in sectors that are being hit hardest by the increased costs—health, social care, retail, hospitality and the third sector—and many of those industries are already struggling with financial pressures. They now face higher costs, possible job losses and service closures. If employers are forced to cut jobs or reduce hours, women, who are more likely to be working part time or in low-paid roles, might well suffer first. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the STUC and 50 other organisations have warned the UK Government that the decision risks Scotland’s vital services.

The Parliament has already debated the ENIC hike and there is largely consensus, even from some in Labour, who might now be pondering the benefit of independence from their Westminster Government’s chaotic decisions. The UK Government is acting in an economically illiterate manner. This tax on jobs is anti-growth and it should be dropped.

We could be discussing other important issues of strong public interest in the chamber today, such as Government-funded bodies acting beyond the law and NHS board accountability. I hope that the Parliament and the Scottish Government are listening to that point.

Good morning. I want to cover issues around accountability and scrutiny mechanisms. In your submission to the committee, you set out the various different interactions between those scrutiny mechanisms. Can you explain those a little bit for us and say how they work together and whether they are effective and robust?

You mentioned the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee. It held additional scrutiny sessions, as I understand it, involving academics and additional organisations. Did that approach improve the scrutiny? What else could we be doing to improve the level of scrutiny and accountability?

To ask the Scottish Government what recent discussions it has had with the United Kingdom Government regarding Ineos proceeding with the closure of Scotland’s only refinery at Grangemouth, in light of the UK Government’s reported £600 million loan to the company for a project in Belgium. (S6O-04310)

This is a sorry situation. Hundreds of highly skilled jobs will be lost, probably for ever, and there will be no refinery capability in Scotland, which is a top 25 oil-producing nation. The results will be worse for the environment, because imports have a higher environmental cost.

Minister, this has been coming for months. We have warned and warned about the situation. The Scottish Government might be happy to sit round pontificating about a just transition, but, to everyone outside the Parliament, it looks passive and pointless. Will the latest UK Government betrayal finally push the Scottish Government to urgently use its devolved powers creatively?

I thought that it might be useful to bring to the committee’s attention things that have been going on in the City of Edinburgh Council that are similar to what Edward Mountain has talked about.

I cannot go into details, but a very concerned constituent came to me to explain serious mishandling of whistleblowing and potential breaches of safeguarding of children that had been going on historically, which I believe are still unresolved. That is in Edinburgh, but I can see that the issue goes further across the country. There appears to be an unacceptably high level of safeguarding failure in the system.

We are talking about children, so I suggest to the committee that, as Edward Mountain set out, the cost should not be an issue. I do not think that the failure in the system is being adequately addressed by the current procedures and processes. I believe that certain public bodies are being defensive in the way that they interact with the Parliament and the Government.

Over the past week, we have seen that the Government, unfortunately, does not have a grip on what is going on across Scotland. As Edward Mountain did, I urge the committee to think seriously about the requests in the petition and take them forward.

Good morning. I want to move on and ask you for your thoughts on scrutiny and accountability with regard to your office. As you will be aware, that was quite a strong theme that came through in the finance committee’s inquiry, and that committee definitely had concerns about the level of scrutiny and whether it was appropriate. In your response, you have laid out the scrutiny and accountability measures that your office is subject to, but can you explain whether you consider them to be adequate? Can you suggest anything that would enhance that scrutiny and accountability?

I know.

I will move on. You mentioned the Auditor General’s section 22 report and said that it rightly shone a light on the levels of scrutiny. Have all the changes that were suggested now been implemented in full?

Thank you.

Good morning. I want to ask about the scrutiny and accountability functions. You will know that in its report the Finance and Public Administration Committee expressed what it is fair to say were quite serious concerns about levels of scrutiny and accountability across the whole piece—not specifically in relation to the Standards Commission, but everywhere.

In your response to the committee’s call for views you said that levels are “adequate”. I put a question about that to Mr Bruce, earlier. I have reflected that “adequate” is probably quite a low bar in that regard. Could more be done? Can you suggest additional ways in which scrutiny could be enhanced to benefit both the service and the impact on the public?