Seòmar agus comataidhean

The Get Glasgow Moving petition is really interesting. Initially, it appears that it seeks to redraw primary legislation, if it were to move through Parliament and be successful. Today, however, we are looking at secondary legislation for something that was agreed by the Parliament in 2019. Therefore, although there is a connection between the petition and what we are looking at today, I do not think that it is a direct one.

The Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee will have to be allowed to decide how it wishes to scrutinise and go forward with the petition. The question in my head is whether, if we do not pass this negative instrument or allow it to move forward, there will be any pathway for franchising bus services in Scotland. In that respect, I am very mindful of SPT’s ambitions to improve the bus service via franchising in Glasgow.

That said, I agree with Mark Ruskell MSP that we need more information on how all of this works. It is very reasonable for Get Glasgow Moving to seek clarity on the role of the traffic commissioner and the panel that would be appointed, and the criteria by which they might or might not make decisions.

As I say, there is absolutely a need for more information, but I just want to put on record that there are two moving parts here. The first is Get Glasgow Moving’s commendable efforts to seek a wider scrutiny role for the Parliament with regard to primary legislation that it has already passed, and the second is the secondary legislation that we are looking at and which provides a pathway to bus franchising. The two things are connected, but not directly so. Again, I would absolutely welcome more information from the Scottish Government, and it would be helpful if we could get some clarity on the role of the traffic commissioner, too.

It is final, and it is brief. I am on my phone because I have to Google things to better understand them as I am listening. I am learning as I go along, convener.

There is clearly a complex emerging methodology and it is not an exact science. It is an iterative process that has to be proportionate for local authorities, but we quite clearly need embedded practice across all supply chains everywhere, with an agreed international methodology.

This is a question for ESS. I am conscious that the European Union is seeking to move to scope 3 reporting from next year for companies above a certain scale. Is there an opportunity for public bodies—not just local authorities in Scotland but across the UK and beyond—to align at European level on some of this stuff? When local authorities go to supply chains that include international Europe-based companies, there could be alignment and the data would have integrity. Has that been looked at, or is it completely tangential to the discussion?

I have a final question; the convener has asked me to be brief.

This might be for Silke Isbrand. I am conscious that large public authorities right across Europe will be grasping the scope 3 reporting requirements for supply chains at Europe level. Could COSLA and our local authorities look to share best practice on how to do that? If you do not have information now, that is absolutely fine. If there is information at the back of your mind, you can contact the committee after the meeting to give it to us. It is about European alignment and embedding best practice proportionately.

That is really helpful. I think that the Scottish Government had an official helping to develop those UK-wide regulations. It might be that the PAS 1899 standard on EV bays has only recently become live.

I am already corresponding with Glasgow City Council and I will continue to do so. If I take a step back, I note that we have 32 local authorities and a nationwide endeavour to ensure that charge points are accessible to wheelchair users and others with disabilities. The issue is how the Scottish Government will collate that information.

I am happy to take more interventions from Mr Balfour, but I suggest that, if he waits a wee bitty, he will see that I am going to come on to all of that. I just want to say that, if we agreed to his amendment today, any such audit would lack credibility.

It is weak to argue that we already have a backstop through the power that relates to an unscheduled review of circumstances. If Audit Scotland were to use that power for audit purposes, one would feel that it was targeting individuals; after all, the power exists to deal with cases where Social Security Scotland thinks that there might have been a change of circumstances, fraudulent activity or an overpayment. Therefore, the use of that power indicates—almost—that something is amiss, whereas with a random, statistically significant, structured, strategic and methodical audit, no one would be targeted. Using the backstop power that Mr Balfour has suggested would, in my view, mean targeting individuals.

I would like the cabinet secretary to provide a bit more information ahead of stage 3, or perhaps at stage 3, on the exemptions that will be consulted on. I would also like to get a bit more clarity on the threshold at which payments will be suspended. Mr Balfour made a strong point about the fact that one of the reasons that someone might not supply the required information is that they are clearly vulnerable. I want to know about the threshold at which Social Security Scotland will move to suspend a benefit. For example, will the person concerned get a knock on their door from someone who has come to do a welfare check? I want to know what risk assessment will be done and how a person’s risk profile will be assessed before any move to suspend assistance is made. It is important that we get more information on that, but that does not mean that I concede that, as well intentioned as Mr Balfour’s and Ms Chapman’s amendments are, they should be agreed to.

Finally, perhaps the cabinet secretary could say a bit more about how, once the audit process is embedded in Social Security Scotland, the agency will review the process to improve or finesse it. I believe that the suspension of payments should be an absolute last resort. Therefore, we need to get the threshold right and to put welfare before the suspension of benefits. There is a balance to be struck there, which Mr Balfour and Ms Chapman are trying to explore today, but I do not think that their amendments would secure that.

I just want to make a general point, convener. I was going to say, “Could you just say all of that again, cabinet secretary? I did not quite catch it”, but I will not.

What is self-evident—it is really just to put this on the record—is that the Government’s legislation team is moving through the bill with a fine-toothed comb to tighten and clarify matters. In years to come, whoever is sitting on the committee will welcome those clarifications. It has clearly involved a lot of work from the officials. Although that is, of course, their job, we really welcome the work that they have put in with regard to section 17.

It was lovely to hear that Jeremy Balfour is regretful of his previous views on SCOSS. I did not hear him repent, but nonetheless.

I ask the cabinet secretary to say in summing up whether there will be a need at some point in the future for a more consolidated strategic review of the powers and effectiveness of SCOSS, and whether it might not be the place of the bill to tack something on to increase the powers of the commission. Rather, we as a Parliament could decide at some point in the future—this committee could hold evidence sessions on it—what the appropriate powers and roles of SCOSS would look like. The Government could respond to that or it could do something more proactive. I am just not sure that this bill is the right piece of legislation to do that bit of work

I will come on to that later in my contribution, but I refute the way in which Mr Balfour has framed his question to me. I will say more about that a little later, too.

If we were to take Mr Balfour’s advice, Social Security Scotland would have the best audit in the world. I accept that the level of fraud is very low at the moment, but I think that it would be almost completely non-existent, and errors would be almost non-existent, too, if we had a self-selecting audit. Those likely to step forward to be audited in the first place would be those who were absolutely not likely to have had an overpayment or to have engaged in fraudulent activity. It would be the best audit in the world and would show that Social Security Scotland was doing a fantastic job. I am sure that it is doing a very good job, but we have to identify any weaknesses that there might be, and a self-selecting audit would not allow us to do so.

No pressure on me to be concise then, convener. I appreciate your proactive chastisement of my remarks.

I believe that Jeremy Balfour has made incredibly well-intentioned and important arguments, but I genuinely and sincerely think that his solutions are weak. I would make a similar point about Maggie Chapman’s amendment 58, too, and I will reflect on that in my contribution.

Having an audit process that was entirely voluntary, as Mr Balfour appears to suggest, would mean that it would not be systematic and methodical, and that would be a key weakness in trying to meet the recommendations that Audit Scotland made a few years ago. It would put the legislation at a disadvantage if we were to agree to Mr Balfour’s amendment, so I suggest that we do not do so.

I am happy to take more interventions from Mr Balfour, but I suggest that, if he waits a wee bitty, he will see that I am going to come on to all of that. I just want to say that, if we agreed to his amendment today, any such audit would lack credibility.

It is weak to argue that we already have a backstop through the power that relates to an unscheduled review of circumstances. If Audit Scotland were to use that power for audit purposes, one would feel that it was targeting individuals; after all, the power exists to deal with cases where Social Security Scotland thinks that there might have been a change of circumstances, fraudulent activity or an overpayment. Therefore, the use of that power indicates—almost—that something is amiss, whereas with a random, statistically significant, structured, strategic and methodical audit, no one would be targeted. Using the backstop power that Mr Balfour has suggested would, in my view, mean targeting individuals.

I would like the cabinet secretary to provide a bit more information ahead of stage 3, or perhaps at stage 3, on the exemptions that will be consulted on. I would also like to get a bit more clarity on the threshold at which payments will be suspended. Mr Balfour made a strong point about the fact that one of the reasons that someone might not supply the required information is that they are clearly vulnerable. I want to know about the threshold at which Social Security Scotland will move to suspend a benefit. For example, will the person concerned get a knock on their door from someone who has come to do a welfare check? I want to know what risk assessment will be done and how a person’s risk profile will be assessed before any move to suspend assistance is made. It is important that we get more information on that, but that does not mean that I concede that, as well intentioned as Mr Balfour’s and Ms Chapman’s amendments are, they should be agreed to.

Finally, perhaps the cabinet secretary could say a bit more about how, once the audit process is embedded in Social Security Scotland, the agency will review the process to improve or finesse it. I believe that the suspension of payments should be an absolute last resort. Therefore, we need to get the threshold right and to put welfare before the suspension of benefits. There is a balance to be struck there, which Mr Balfour and Ms Chapman are trying to explore today, but I do not think that their amendments would secure that.