Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am grateful that it is guaranteed, because it is not guaranteed. If the DWP were saying, “We will try to get a payment to you, but it might be several weeks late,” would that be acceptable? If it is not acceptable for the DWP, why is it acceptable for Social Security Scotland?

I will push on for the moment.

You could have said, “I am pleased that there is a good relationship between DWP, the Scottish Government and Social Security Scotland, but could you get the information to us two or three weeks early?”

Can I clarify, again through you, minister, how many meetings officials had with DWP officials to discuss how the new benefit would work?

I will move on to my final question in this area. Your predecessor started with a blank piece of paper in designing a scheme. I accept that there were faults in the DWP scheme, and you have highlighted those, but the new system here has been criticised by a number of third sector charities. Did you consider any other scheme for deciding how to provide payments? For example, rather than take seven days at a certain temperature as the lower limit, did you look at three or four days? Why, in the end, did you come up with a scheme that, in certain years, will possibly leave a number of people in the coldest parts of Scotland less well off?

No, I will move on, if that is okay, because I am conscious of the time and that we need to move on to other things.

My final point is that, if I had been sitting here a few years ago with Ben Macpherson, before he was a minister and when he was a member of the Social Security Committee, and the DWP had said, “We hope to get the payment to you by February, but, actually, we can’t guarantee that. It might be March before you get it,” there would have been outrage—rightly—from the committee. However, it seems that the committee is happy to say, “Well, maybe February, maybe March. Let’s just wait and see.” We are treating two systems completely differently.

It is time that the minister took responsibility. Payments are not being made on time. We can see people tweeting that they have not received the payment or that they have not received it when they should have. It is now time for Social Security Scotland to deliver it. I had hoped that the minister would be a bit more positive about the payment being made to everyone in February.

I ask that the minister go away with his officials to see whether he can come up with something better for next year. We will not vote against the motion because, clearly, not having the regulations in place would leave people even worse off. However, I am not sure that what is before us is what we envisaged when we hoped for new benefits from the Scottish Government.

Yes, convener. I have to say, though, that I am slightly concerned by that last answer to Mr Briggs, minister, because I did not hear any guarantee from you or your official that the payments will be made in February. We have seen slippage in other payments by Social Security Scotland. From what has been said, you do not seem to have engaged with the DWP at ministerial level on this; however, you have said that officers and officials have had a good relationship with the DWP. Why are we waiting until the end of January for the information? Why are we not getting it now or even at the beginning of January, so that we can guarantee that the payments will be made in February? Why are we waiting until the end of the month?

I again thank the minister for his answers today.

Clearly, there are mixed views about the benefit and about how it has been handled and implemented. Although the minister has given some helpful answers, I am not sure that he has grasped the disappointment among many people about how the new benefit has been implemented. Clearly, it is the only thing on the table, so I will not vote against the motion, but I will not support it either. I will abstain because I think that the Scottish Government could have done a lot better. We need to say to the Government that we understand that payments will be made—we hope—in February but that, going forward, we need to see new regulations that address some of the issues that we have asked about today.

As the minister has pointed out, it is a new system, with the new benefit being created using the Scottish Parliament’s powers. I find it slightly strange that a system has been designed that fails on one of the policy objectives that the Scottish Government had put down in writing, namely that “No-one will lose out”. However the minister wants to argue it—as a fine lawyer, he has argued it well—the fact is that, with the new system, people will lose out, particularly in Braemar and surrounding areas of the Highlands.

I do not know what discussions took place in the Scottish Government, and I appreciate that the minister was not involved in those—his predecessors were—but going from a system that was not working particularly well to another system that will not work particularly well seems a rather odd situation. Why were we not able to sit down and come up with a scheme that includes more people and, at the same time, protects those who are most vulnerable to cold temperatures in Scotland? There will be people in other parts of the United Kingdom who, in the next couple of weeks, will get money from the DWP while residents in Braemar are hoping that they might get £50 in February. That does not seem to be treating people with dignity and respect.

I appreciate that, minister, but, again, my point is that you did not pick up the phone. There was an opportunity to do that, but you did not see the issue as a priority.

Do you accept that, as we heard in evidence last week, there are people who will be worse off this year than they would have been in previous years?

Thank you, minister.