Seòmar agus comataidhean

With caveats.

I thank all members for their patience.

Following today’s proceedings, the clerks will prepare a draft report, and the committee is invited to decide whether to consider that draft report in private at our next meeting. Do members agree to do so?

Members indicated agreement.

It is good to have you here. I think that this is the first time that I have sat on a committee with you, and I am looking forward to it.

Agenda item 2 is consideration of a Scottish statutory instrument. As the instrument has been laid under the affirmative procedure, it can come into force only if the Parliament approves it.

I welcome to the meeting Shirley-Anne Somerville, Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, and the following Scottish Government officials: Owen Allen, team leader, winter heating benefits and welfare fund; Julie McKinney, head of social security strategy, welfare fund and winter benefits; and Stephanie Virlogeux, lawyer, legal department. I thank all of you for joining us today.

Following this evidence-taking session, the committee will be invited under agenda item 3 to consider the motion to recommend approval of the instrument. I remind everyone that Scottish Government officials can speak under this item but not in the debate that follows.

Before I invite the cabinet secretary to make a short opening statement, I also remind members—indeed, everyone—that legal proceedings on winter fuel payments are active. Therefore, under the Parliament’s sub judice rule, members should avoid making any statement about the subject matter of those proceedings, although I should say that the rule does not restrict consideration of legislation. Members and witnesses should therefore focus their remarks on the regulations—specifically the regulations that we are considering today—and avoid straying into wider matters that relate to the legal proceedings.

I invite the cabinet secretary to make an opening statement.

Good morning, and welcome to the 28th meeting in 2024 of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee. We have received apologies this morning from our convener Collette Stevenson, so I am afraid that you are stuck with me as deputy convener.

I apologise for not being in the room this morning. Had I anticipated that I would be required to convene, I would have been there. No discourtesy was intended. David Torrance, who is the Scottish National Party substitute member on the committee, might or might not appear this morning.

Agenda item 1 is a declaration of interests. I welcome to the committee Liz Smith, who replaces Roz McCall—I thank Roz for her valued contribution to the committee. Liz, as you are a new committee member, I must ask whether you have any relevant interests that you wish to declare.

I cannot see who wishes to intervene, but I am content for you to take an intervention, cabinet secretary.

There will be a division.

For

Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)

Abstentions

Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

I thank the cabinet secretary and her officials for their contribution to today’s meeting, and I also thank fellow committee members for how they conducted this morning’s debate.

We now move into private session.

First of all, as far as etiquette is concerned, it is completely fine to intervene on the convener. Indeed, you absolutely should do so, given that I specifically mentioned your comments.

You have again made a really important point: there will always been in-year budget revisions, and sometimes things go up and sometimes they go down. Ms Clark, you have identified a budget that is going up, but lots of other budgets are going down as a result of those revisions, and the Scottish Government must look at things in the round. I look forward to seeing what decisions the Scottish Government makes, and our committee will scrutinise them on a cross-party basis. That was a helpful intervention.

None of us wants to be in a position of letting politics get in the way of this important winter fuel payment being delivered to some of the most vulnerable pensioners. I suspect that most or all of us will wish that the benefit were being paid on a universal basis, but that is not to be at this stage. I will leave my comments at that.

As no other member wishes to speak, do you wish to sum up, cabinet secretary? You can waive the right—it is fully up to you.

Mr Balfour, if you really want me to do this, I will be happy to look at the Official Report for those occasions either in the chamber or in committee when you have questioned why we were building the system in the first place, and scrutinised the cost of the system and said that it might be more affordable and cheaper simply to run it from Westminster. If you have not said that, I will happily apologise, but I think that that has been a pretty consistent position of yours.

However, let us not personalise this issue between us. I am trying to make the point that there is a balance to be struck between having a flexible system and a system that provides value for money, that is cost-effective and which delivers the policies that we intend to deliver. That is the only point that I was trying to make, Mr Balfour, so I offer my apologies—I did not mean to trigger you with my contribution.

I thought that Katy Clark’s contribution was incredibly helpful. I hope that I am capturing correctly what she said, but she asked what more could have been done in spite of the decision from Westminster. That speaks to mitigations—although I will not mention them, as I want to stay away from the politics of this.

Katy Clark also asked what more could be done once the Barnett consequentials become clear. Again, that points to an uncertainty in the Scottish budget, not just until the Chancellor of the Exchequer gets to their feet, but until the consequences are known.

We are where we are, and we all understand why that is the case. This is not really a moment for politics—my understanding is that we do not pass—