Seòmar agus comataidhean

Let us briefly expand on that. On the interaction with the UK Government, the Scottish Government has at times said that the relationship with the previous Government was too difficult in this space, and you seem to be suggesting that the relationship with the new Government provides the opportunity to be more successful. I am not sure that those two things can be entirely true. Are you saying that there is a need for the Government to move forward, state its aim and try to work with the incoming Government regardless, in order to move the bill forward?

Good morning. A number of reasons were given when the Government announced that it was not proceeding as expected with the bill. I am keen to hear our witnesses’ views on those reasons. Do you find them convincing or do you think that there were other factors at play? I appreciate that you have touched on those issues in your initial answers. Do you think that there might be other factors at play, such as the budgetary pressures on the Scottish Government, that might explain why the bill is not proceeding?

I turn to Professor O’Hagan. You commented in a previous answer on the Government’s statement about trying to do more to protect disabled people, women and people who experience racism. The Government has stated that it feels that more work is needed in that space. I think you said that you felt that, yes, of course there is more work to be done on those treaties but that we have made progress as well. Can you capture some of that as an excuse for delay? What can be done in that space?

Thank you. I am conscious of the time, so I will bring in Dr Tickell.

That was comprehensive. Thank you.

Good morning. Perhaps quite neatly, we will move on to the Government’s reasons for not introducing the bill. I am keen to understand whether the witnesses find the reasons that have been given for that to be convincing or whether they think that other reasons were at play. With the previous panel, we heard some speculation around budgetary concerns, for example. With this panel, it would be useful to cover the Supreme Court’s UNCRC bill judgment. I will start with Alan Miller.

Would anyone else like to comment?

Does John Wilkes want to add anything on those two questions?

I am grateful, convener. The contributions of colleagues have been helpful. As Mr Balfour and others have alluded to, section 16 is a contentious section—in fact, from the evidence that we took from stakeholders, it is probably the most contentious section of the bill, and it is those stakeholders whom I am keen to put at the forefront of our consideration.

I recognise and understand the principle of desiring information for audit. It is important for understanding how the social security system operates, its impact, its inefficiencies and efficiencies, and the support that it rightly gives people. It is also important for identifying where there might be fraud and error—particularly fraud, which can have a criminal element. We should all be concerned about that.

I would not support Maggie Chapman’s approach of removing section 16 from the bill entirely, because I think that important work is being done in this space.

In relation to Mr Balfour’s amendment 10, I recognise the concerns that have been raised. The amendment is challenging, so perhaps we could do further work in consultation with the stakeholders I spoke about to understand how the system might work more efficiently. There are opportunities to look at co-designing regulation, which might give people more input than they would have over something that is in the bill.

I am grateful, convener. The contributions of colleagues have been helpful. As Mr Balfour and others have alluded to, section 16 is a contentious section—in fact, from the evidence that we took from stakeholders, it is probably the most contentious section of the bill, and it is those stakeholders whom I am keen to put at the forefront of our consideration.

I recognise and understand the principle of desiring information for audit. It is important for understanding how the social security system operates, its impact, its inefficiencies and efficiencies, and the support that it rightly gives people. It is also important for identifying where there might be fraud and error—particularly fraud, which can have a criminal element. We should all be concerned about that.

I would not support Maggie Chapman’s approach of removing section 16 from the bill entirely, because I think that important work is being done in this space.

In relation to Mr Balfour’s amendment 10, I recognise the concerns that have been raised. The amendment is challenging, so perhaps we could do further work in consultation with the stakeholders I spoke about to understand how the system might work more efficiently. There are opportunities to look at co-designing regulation, which might give people more input than they would have over something that is in the bill.