Before I, somehow, try to draw the discussion together—with consensus if possible, but perhaps not—are there any other comments?
As there are no other comments, I will continue. I hope that members will agree that when I first got the letter and gave my reflections to Parliament, I tried to be as factual and dispassionate as possible—I thought that it was appropriate that this committee should have the chance to discuss the matter first in public.
I think that it is clear that, at the very least, a majority of committee members, if not every member, have significant concerns in relation to the matter. The concerns may differ slightly, but they exist—I would hope—across all parties, which is why our original letter was drafted as it was.
The first paragraph of the secretary of state’s letter totally ignores the “shared space” and interconnectivity between the Scottish and UK social security systems. The letter refers to that only towards the end of the first paragraph, where it talks about the UK Government and the Scottish Government working well together.
This committee is not an arm of Government—it is there to scrutinise all aspects of social security in Scotland without fear or favour, whether that involves Scottish Government officials, UK Government officials, Scottish Government ministers or UK Government ministers. It is for the committee to decide how best to do that. We would not accept the Scottish Government telling us what it thought was appropriate, and we should not accept the UK Government doing so. It is our job to scrutinise.
It is also not for a secretary of state to tell us who they are happy or not happy to have appearing at the committee. Again, it is for this committee to decide how best to scrutinise without fear or favour. That aspect of the letter is disappointing.
Much has been made of the last paragraph. I will try to give a generous interpretation of it to try to bring the committee together, as that is my job as convener. Nonetheless, I find it difficult and challenging to view the letter, and its tone and message, in anything other than the wider political context in which we are all operating, in which there are significant concerns—across all parties, in fact—about the undermining of the devolution settlement.
I refer to some of my earlier comments about the very positive and constructive meeting that I had by telephone with the secretary of state last year. It is my job, as committee convener, to build and develop those relationships and find a collegiate way forward.
10:45
I think that the committee has already agreed that we would wish UK Government officials and a UK Government minister to attend this committee as part of our forthcoming inquiry on how the Scottish social security system can act quickly to support our communities in a Covid-19 environment. Within that inquiry, we want to know specifically what the constraints and barriers may be on the system’s ability to do that. I cannot see any other way to address that question fully without getting both UK officials and a UK political representative—a minister or secretary of state—to attend the committee.
I therefore suggest, based on the last paragraph of the letter, that we go back to the secretary of state. I see that Keith Brown is sighing. Yes, Mr Brown—I am sighing inside, too. You may say that it will be just another letter, on which we may be rebuffed, but I think that we should go back to the secretary of state and say, “You have indicated that you will appear at our committee on a bilateral basis.” We can argue another time about how often we get the secretary of state to committee.
We can say in the letter, “The secretary of state has agreed to come to committee, and we urge her to attend an evidence session—we insist on it, with all great courtesy—with our committee as part of the inquiry that we are about to conduct.”
If the secretary of state also feels that it is important for officials to attend, that would be very welcome also. Conservative members of the committee are saying that the secretary of state has agreed to come to the committee. We should say that we believe that that should happen as soon as possible, and it should be during our forthcoming inquiry. We have already put in a request—I would say in the letter that a request has already been made—and the reply does not confirm that the secretary of state is willing to come to the inquiry.
We should go back—on a unanimous basis, I would hope—and say, “Thank you for the letter. Please refer to the Official Report, where you will see the frustrations and very strongly held views of our committee in relation to the non-attendance of the UK Government at this committee for some two years.”
I hope that we can unanimously agree that the next appropriate time for the secretary of state to attend this committee is during our forthcoming inquiry, and we can write back on that basis. That is my suggestion.
I have a second point in relation to the committee writing—or my writing on the committee’s behalf—to the Conveners Group to ask about the experiences of other committees in trying to get UK Government ministers to attend committees in order to allow them to get on with the scrutiny that they have to conduct.
Those are the two requests that I make of committee members, on a cross-party—and, I hope, unanimous—basis. I will put that to the committee. Does the committee agree—unanimously, rather than by majority, because it is important that we do that—to go back to Thérèse Coffey and refer her to the Official Report of this meeting?
We can refer her to our clear frustrations and disappointment—and, in some cases, anger—and say that we want to build that relationship. We can say that the next time that we would wish the secretary of state to come to committee—which would be the first time, in fact—would be during our forthcoming inquiry, and that she should therefore agree a date as speedily as possible.
Do I have the committee’s agreement to proceed on that basis?