Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have no relevant interests.

At the moment, in some quarters, there is some controversy about electricity as a whole. You have made it quite clear that the regaining of powers does not change how matters currently stand in relation to environmental impact assessments.

They can express their views and empower themselves, maybe.

I want to turn to the policy decision that the UK Government made—it was a bit of a shock decision—and the removal of those moneys from the Scottish Government. I have a general question about respect. Has the Scottish Government raised the issue of the respect agenda with the UK Government when it comes to intergovernmental relations, as opposed to its taking an approach in which a change in policy is sprung upon you unawares that you then must deal with? I understand—you said this in your opening remarks—that discussions between your civil servants and UK civil servants about the transfer of the powers and resources had been going on for some time. How far in advance of the announcement did you have knowledge of what the UK Government was about to do, and do you think that it acted in a respectful way?

I think that it is agreed that none of us wants to be in the position of approving the regulations, but it is a necessity. We are where we are, because of the UK Government’s shock decision to end universality on winter fuel payments, which has an impact on our budget here. We can debate until the cows come home what funding might be available from other announcements and from yesterday’s budget. However, I have been sitting here in this meeting, listening to the various arguments about what will or will not be available, and I have to say that I do not envy the task of the cabinet secretary or her colleagues, particularly the finance secretary, in trying to get to grips with what the budget means for us.

From our discussions today and previously, I recognise that the cabinet secretary does not want to be in that position either, and that she wants to do better for the people of Scotland. I am quite sure that she will come back with proposals. I talked about the shock that we had—which, obviously, the Government had, too—about the changes. However, the real shock is for the folk out there whose expectation was that they would get winter fuel payments this coming year, many of whom now will not. The short-term impact of situations that happen in this country, where shock comes into play, is unacceptable, and UK Governments must take cognisance of that and not do such things in the future.

I also recognise Mr Balfour’s point about the DWP. However, those of us who have, over many years, followed the discussions about the DWP, and its lack of flexibility in its attitude to the Scottish Government in the past, will not be surprised to hear that there has been no flexibility from the DWP on this issue.

The shock scenario is the worst aspect of this policy, not only for the Scottish Government but in particular for those folks out there who expected payments this year.

It is a pity that we canna broaden out some of the questions but, obviously, because of the current court situation, the sub judice rule is in play. Therefore, I will stick to the regulations that are in front of us. Cabinet secretary, I take it that you wish that you were laying different regulations in front of the committee today.

The UK Government’s policy change has an impact on people who live in the real world. You spoke about some of the mitigation measures that the Scottish Government has put in place, such as through the Scottish welfare fund and discretionary housing payments. Given that eligibility now largely rests on entitlement to pension credit, what discussions have you had with the secretary of state about the UK Government running a campaign to ensure that all those folk who are entitled to pension credit get that benefit, and therefore get the winter fuel payment?

Yes, I do. It comes back to Gordon MacDonald’s question and the answer that you gave about compensation. What happens in cases of fraudulent disposition—I think that that is the term—of which there have been examples in recent times in the north-east of Scotland and in West Lothian, if I remember rightly? How do you deal with those?

How do you react to any allegations of fraudulent disposition? How much of a priority is it for you to find the true answer for people who are obviously in very difficult positions?

You say that you will be able to look at the sasine register now and get an inkling of where ownership lies. What is the difference between being able to do that now, compared to a quarter of a century ago when that was not the case? What is different in terms of your setup? Obviously there have been digital changes. What else has taken place in that time so that you are more confident now than was the case 25 years ago?