Chamber and committees

I wonder whether we can touch on the budget-setting process, because it is important and relevant to our discussions this morning and to the evidence that we heard last week. The equality and fairer Scotland statement and the “Your Scotland, Your Finances” document are useful in explaining the process, but there is a sense that things happen after the fact.

Last week, there was a sense that budgetary decisions are made and a fait accompli is sent out so that the equalities measures can be scrutinised. There was also a sense of frustration and a feeling that there must be an opportunity to scrutinise and understand decisions before they are made. Does the minister recognise that? Is she willing to take on board and act on the evidence that we have heard?

I hear what you have said about the longer-term work but, for the coming budget, do you expect to have seen improvements in how stakeholders feel about engagement? When you come back to the committee, will we be having a similar conversation? Will we have seen a marked improvement?

Good morning to the minister and officials. I will explore the evidence that we heard last week on the equality and fairer Scotland budget statement. In particular, I am interested in the evidence that we heard from Oxfam, which suggested that decisions are made first and then a national outcome is assigned. The back-and-forth that I had with Oxfam last week was about taking an approach in which the outcome is the central pillar, with the spokes that come off that being all the other work that we know about. Do you agree that the approach at the moment seems to be a bit back to front?

I do not intend to rehearse the debates that we have already had on this subject, not least those in the chamber. I would just point to my earlier line of questioning to the cabinet secretary, in which I reflected on where we are. We want to ensure that people who meet the qualifying criteria are able to receive pension credit payments and that the uptake for those is as robust as possible. We are also keen for more work to be done at UK level to increase both the uptake of pension credit and the availability of such payments to more people, not least through its connection to housing benefit, and for there to be more consideration of the wider criteria.

In my lines of questioning throughout this debate and our other discussions, I have consistently said that I am concerned about the Scottish Government’s lack of utilisation of the Barnett consequentials that we will see through the household support fund. I believe that there has been an opportunity to do more. I again point to the on-going work that has been done with the Executive in Northern Ireland. There has also been an opportunity to look again at the system’s flexibility. I have concerns that the social security system has to be built in such a way as to be flexible. Things change and develop, and views vary, so flexibility has to be built in.

Naturally, I recognise in this debate the need to ensure that payments go out. However, I have a number of concerns, which I have just put on the record.

Good morning. I will follow on from where Katy Clark left off with regard to the flexibility that is available for any change in approach in Scotland, because we are talking about a devolved benefit.

I am keen to understand what consideration was given to the consequentials that will come from the household support fund. The cabinet secretary and I have debated this previously and, at that point, she was sceptical about the suggestion that £41 million of consequentials would come from that fund. I hope that, given yesterday’s UK budget, she is less sceptical about the money that will come to Scotland.

There is a genuine debate around the issue that we are discussing, but there is a consensus around what more could be done to, as the cabinet secretary said, maximise the benefit’s impact, and to see how the criteria could be widened. To what extent has she considered that? It is interesting to note that, in the intervening period, the devolved Administration in Northern Ireland has given consideration, along with the DWP and others, to how it might use the consequentials that flow from the household support fund to enable the criteria to be widened.

I am grateful for that. I think that we have agreed the principles that there could be flexibility in the offer to pensioners more widely and that there will be consequentials, notwithstanding what you have just said.

I am keen to understand the nature of the system that was built by Social Security Scotland. My understanding from my discussions and our debates is that it is a universal system and it therefore cannot be changed. I am keen to understand why that is the case. Notwithstanding where we are now, a future Scottish Government of whatever stripe may decide to change eligibility up or down. For example, people might decide that millionaires should not receive the winter fuel payment. That is one view. I am keen to understand why there is no flexibility in the system that was built by Social Security Scotland, or am I incorrect in my view?

I appreciate your comments, deputy convener; I will finish on this question.

On the point about flexibility, I just want to be clear. The cabinet secretary says that the system could not be changed for this year, so additionality could not be put in—the system would have to replicate what has been done at the DWP. Am I correct in saying that there is no flexibility in the system this year?

So, there is no flexibility in the system whatsoever.

I appreciate that there is a lot to get through, given that there is £1.5 billion a year of extra consequentials. The chancellor announced that the household support fund has been extended beyond the six-month period to cover a full year. Do you accept that there will be Barnett consequentials and that the estimate from the House of Commons library is that there will be £41 million for Scotland as a result of the spending on that fund?

That is helpful. Do you think that that is true across a suite of interventions? Obviously, we will have a debate this week about climate targets. We have other areas that sit alongside this work. Is it your view that the framework has to sit at the centre and that we should then have spokes that come off it that have to be more interactive?