Seòmar agus comataidhean

It is really helpful to hear that that is already in the Government’s thinking. It sounds as if the convener and the minister might be in agreement for once.

The line of questioning is interesting. Will the regulations give small to medium-sized businesses dispensation in relation to some requirements? Given the minister’s exchange with the convener, I am interested in how that might pan out.

On Monica Lennon’s questions about SCIAF’s call to amend the bill, I pushed SCIAF quite hard last week about what that would mean in practice. How can we do due diligence for public sector and corporate supply chains, considering the nature of full supply chain procurement, which could be global? There could be human rights implications. What would that mean in practice? SCIAF seemed to admit that it would be hugely difficult, but that is not a reason not to have it as an objective or to put it in a strategy, although we would have to be realistic about what we could do. I just wanted to put that on the record. Does that make you minded more to move in that direction, but with a great deal of realism about what we could achieve? It would be difficult, but that is not a reason not to try.

Thank you, cabinet secretary. You have made it very clear that the Government does not support the bill, but is it open to elements in it? Not supporting the bill is one thing, but being open minded about certain aspects of its contents is another. Are those issues being ruled out, or will they be considered as part of the Government’s wider consultation?

The committee has become aware of a gap that exists—and, indeed, became particularly aware of it a couple of weeks ago, when we heard from Lucy Kenyon of the Association of Occupational Health and Wellbeing Professionals and Professor Ewan Macdonald. They highlighted the need to collect better and more robust data in the workplace on emerging trends and issues regarding industrial injury and illnesses. Trade unions and occupational health are keen to be part of the partnership that plugs that gap and collects that data, and the Health and Safety Executive—which, unfortunately, is not giving oral evidence to our committee—has a role to play, too.

Cabinet secretary, will you say a bit more about which organisations and bodies have a significant role to play here? Do you accept that there could be a gap? Which bodies, individuals and groups could help to plug that gap in relation to data and emerging trends around such illnesses?

Thank you, Dr Witcher. Those are very helpful opening remarks.

I hope that one of my colleagues will return later in the evidence session to the financial challenges and the relationship between devolved and reserved benefits. I will not take up those cudgels in my opening question—I will be a bit more geekish.

In our predecessor Social Security Committee, which I convened, we used to appreciate reports by SCOSS that made quite significant recommendations to the Government on how it could improve the roll-out and delivery of a whole variety of matters. By and large—I would say this—that seemed to work well. The recommendations were robust, there was clarity and the Government seemed to respond—not always, but by and large—positively and constructively. I am a Government back bencher, and it suits me to say those things, but have I captured things accurately? Is that one of the things that have worked well, or does more need to be done to support SCOSS in that role going forward?

Thank you for that exchange. It was remiss of me not to say that we will have some other questions on the timescale later, but those have been pre-empted. I should have identified that as convener, but we are where we are.

We move to questions from our colleague Paul O’Kane, who is online.

Dr Witcher, it is not often that a witness comes to the committee, identifies the problems, then, in the same response, gives the solution and says that everything has been delivered, so I thank you. I have one brief further question, although I may come back in later, depending on time.

According to the paper that we read ahead of today’s meeting, you are keen that the expertise that is captured in SCOSS is used proactively as well as reactively. Alongside scrutinising regulations and legislation and making recommendations for what should be tweaked, altered, made clearer and so on, I think that you were talking about SCOSS taking a much more proactive role. A pattern is emerging in the interaction between devolved and reserved social security matters, and there is a suggestion that a piece of research—a bit of proactive work in relation to that—would be helpful. Can SCOSS currently not do that because it is not able to do it or is not resourced to do it? You mentioned it in your paper. Could you say a wee bit about that, before colleagues come in with some other questions?

I know that Mr Mason wants to explore the finances underpinning some of this but, before we come to that, I want to check something. Cabinet secretary, you keep talking about the fact that, if the eligibility criteria do not change, the outcomes will not change in terms of who qualifies for and receives the existing benefit or the new Scottish benefit. We heard a lot about the judgments being based on expert opinion and the reasonableness test in the eligibility criteria.

We also heard that the IIAC has identified four conditions relating to long Covid that could potentially allow people to receive benefits, and that is caught up in the process. However, there is a difficulty with that, because the recommendations that politicians and processes rely on experts making are not always accepted—in this case, potentially, by the DWP on behalf of the UK Government. The reason I am putting that on the record is to ask you what parts of the eligibility criteria might need to be looked at again and changed. Should the eligibility criteria always be expert led?

Good morning and welcome to the 31st meeting in 2023 of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee. We have apologies from our convener, Collette Stevenson.

Agenda item 1 is a decision on taking business in private. Do members agree to take agenda item 4 in private?

Members indicated agreement.