Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am sure that councils have undertaken a number of pieces of work on that issue. The point that you raise about how we share that good practice across councils and across the board is interesting. If the Government can do anything on that, we would be happy to assist.

We indeed had the discussion that Paul O’Kane refers to. Given that the UK budget was delivered only yesterday, we are still working through the finer detail, as I think that Paul O’Kane will appreciate, but we have said that the budget includes proposals, certainly in some areas, that are a step in the right direction.

Clearly, once we have considered the budget fully, we will be able to consider how any consequentials that flow from it could be used across Government, including on the aspect that we are discussing. If there are consequentials, the Government will consider how much they are and what they could be used for. I will be happy to carry on that conversation with Paul O’Kane once we are a bit further down the track of analysing the fine detail of yesterday’s budget.

It appears that there will be additional consequentials. I hope that you will forgive me if I anticipate that, over the next couple of days, a number of calls will be made as regards how to spend those consequentials, and I note that such calls often add up to a lot more than the consequentials that are received. Additional consequentials may be coming, but the important thing at this point is for the Government to analyse that.

I accept that Mr O’Kane has made calls on the matter right from the start, but other colleagues from his party and other parties will perhaps ask us to spend those consequentials in different ways and, as I said, the total of those calls often adds up to more than the money that we get.

However, with all those caveats, I absolutely take Mr O’Kane’s point and I will be happy to carry on that conversation with him and colleagues as we move forward and progress on to the budget.

The system was built on the assumption that the Scottish Government’s policy intent of a universal benefit would be carried out. Theoretically, a system could be built within the agency that could cope with myriad different issues, but we would then be challenged about why we were building a system that tried to second-guess what may or may not happen in the future and why we were wasting resources on that when we should be building the system for the Government’s policy intent.

That was the policy intent, that is what we intended to deliver and that is what the system was built on. Clearly, the system can be changed. It will have to be changed for next year. That will require work, which involves additional expense. Each suggestion that the system could do something different requires funding to allow that to be built. These things take time. It could not be changed overnight, which is why we have had to rely on the DWP this year, because the system could not be changed over the timeframe that we were given, but it can be changed for next year.

The system could be changed in myriad different ways, but I hope that the committee would expect that systems are built based on the policy intent that the Government wants to take through. I am not sure how we could second-guess what is going to happen in the future or how many variations of that we would want to build a system for, and, in any case, that would be a highly inefficient way to build a system.

The system was built for the provision of a universal benefit, which was the Scottish Government’s intent. Given how long it takes to build a social security system, we cannot change it for this year in just a couple of weeks.

As we look at how we could use any consequentials—if, indeed, there are any—ministers will receive advice on alternative ways by which we can provide support to pensioners in addition to what is already provided here that is not available in England.

With the greatest respect, convener, I would push back on that again. We cannot discuss the right to housing—which I give as an example—without considering what would not be within scope. The human rights bill is limited in scope because of the Supreme Court judgment. I want to change that, because that would increase what is in scope on housing, for example. It is because we want to strengthen the bill that we want to go further on some aspects. I am acutely aware of the limitations on what the Government can do on the human rights bill, and I want it to go further. I hope that Ms Gallacher does, too.

Sure. There are two areas in particular where we can make demonstrable progress over the next 18 months. One is capability-building activities; the other is the tracker tool. The work that people wanted us to do on the tracker was outlined in SNAP 2. It would, in effect, monitor and support the implementation of human rights recommendations from the international treaty bodies. We have worked together with international partners to understand what already exists and how that might need to be adapted—or not—for Scotland-specific circumstances.

I am very keen to see what can be done on the tracker tool quickly, to look at what we can learn from those who already use it and to see whether stakeholders would be content for us to move forward quite rapidly on that measure.

Things are made slightly more difficult, if I can put it that way, because we are not a signatory to treaties. However, we need to get past any practical difficulties. I hope that our very different relations with the UK Government might help us to make progress on that.

You are quite right to demonstrate how that tool could be used. I will bring in Kavita Chetty to respond on some of the practicalities that we are already looking at.

In my response to the deputy convener, I tried to deal with the criticism about being blindsided. As I said in my opening remarks—I will reiterate this once again—I absolutely understand people’s deep frustration and anger. I have a job of work to do to build trust and to show that my decision to delay the bill was made because there is an opportunity to make the bill stronger, which did not exist during the other years in which I have been involved in this work.

Forgive me—I am not trying to make a political point about that. It is simply the case that there has been a change in approach. That meant that I was left in a position over the summer in which we could have decided to go forward with the bill, as we had intended to do, but I know, in my heart of hearts, that if we had done that, it would not have been as strong as it could have been.

I appreciate that, last week, the committee heard evidence that suggested that we could introduce the bill and simultaneously make it better. I hope that we will have time to go into why I genuinely do not see that as a realistic and practical option. I am happy to go into further details on that later, if that would help the committee.