Social Security Committee

Meeting date: Thursday, September 10, 2020

Official Report 580KB pdf

---

Correspondence

Item 3 is to consider correspondence that the committee has received from Thérèse Coffey, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. At our work programme discussion on 20 August, the committee agreed to write to the secretary of state to invite her—again—to attend one of our meetings. The clerks have helpfully prepared a brief timeline for me to put on the record before I ask members to comment on her response.

We first issued an invitation in September 2019. In October 2019, I had a telephone call with the secretary of state, and I repeated the invitation. I put on the record that that conversation was positive and constructive. In January and March 2020, our invitation was repeated in correspondence on other matters, and again in June and August 2020.

I point out that the timeline of our attempts to get a relevant minister or secretary of state to appear at the committee goes back a couple of years, and predates September 2019, when we first asked the current Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to attend the committee.

10:30  

I think that it is reasonable to say that the committee has been disappointed, perplexed and frustrated at the lack of engagement; I am being diplomatic when I say that.

We have now had a response, dated 1 September, on which I will reflect after I hear members’ comments. Once the discussion has concluded, we will decide whether we wish to take any action. I will then close the meeting, as this is the final item of business on today’s agenda.

I already have one request to speak, from Shona Robison, so I will bring her in first. I ask members in the room to indicate—as they are doing—if they wish to speak, and those who are participating online should do so, too.

I have just been rereading the letter, and I have a few points to make. The tone of the first paragraph, which discusses which ministers are accountable to which Parliament, is, while factual, quite extraordinary. The Scottish ministers have regularly gone down to the UK Parliament to give evidence without ever, as I recall, saying that they are accountable only to the Scottish Parliament and are therefore not required to appear in another place. The tone is rather unfortunate.

The second paragraph expresses the idea that it is really for officials to appear before the committee. That is very much a step backwards from where we had hoped to get to with our repeated requests for a minister to come and give evidence. We have had DWP officials appearing before the committee on previous occasions—they have been very good on operational matters in particular—but it would be unfair to ask officials to come here to talk about policy decisions, which are ultimately ministerial decisions. That is the whole point of having a minister at the committee.

I would not be content to let the matter go, because it would set a very bad precedent. It would suggest that a secretary of state can basically turn around and say, “Well, you can have officials, and we’ll identify the person who is best suited to attend the committee.” That is disrespectful and would set a bad precedent. We should not allow the current position to stand—we should go back to the secretary of state and say that, if we wanted officials to appear before the committee, we would ask for them. A minister is ultimately accountable for policy decisions, which is why we have asked for a minister or secretary of state to attend.

I hope that that gives a flavour of my view of the letter.

This feels a bit like an English higher exam, in which you are given a letter and you have to interpret what it says, and you will be marked on what you come up with. My interpretation is slightly different from the one that Shona Robison has given, in particular with regard to the last paragraph, which is the key part of the letter.

I read that paragraph as saying that it is up to us to go back to the DWP to say what we want to discuss with it, and the DWP will then decide who would be the appropriate minister to come and give evidence. If we were talking about disability, it would be a certain minister; if we were talking about universal credit, it would perhaps be a different minister.

The ball is back in our court. We, as a committee, need to work out what we want to discuss with the UK Government. Would it be a general sweep-through of the issues or a discussion of specific matters? We can then go back and ask the secretary of state to identify an appropriate individual to give evidence.

It comes down to interpretation. My interpretation of the letter is that it does not say that only officials can give evidence. It says, “Tell us what you want to discuss, and we will work out who the appropriate individual is.”

I come to the discussion without any baggage, so I am looking at the matter from a fresh perspective, based only on the letter that I have in front of me.

The third paragraph categorically states that Thérèse Coffey is more than happy to discuss “particular issues” that the committee identifies “on a bilateral basis”, and she has also offered to send her officials along to the committee. I am not quite sure what everyone is getting their knickers in a twist about.

Thank you, Rachael. I will reserve my comments until I hear the wider views of the committee.

I agree with the idea that Shona Robison outlined: we would not want to retreat from our position that there are occasions on which we should hear from the minister, and we have been trying to bring about such a meeting.

Jeremy Balfour gave a slightly different interpretation of the letter, and Rachael Hamilton made the same point. Their interpretation is that the letter does not disbar a minister from appearing before us, and that Thérèse Coffey is offering to work with us “on a bilateral basis”—I am not sure what is meant by that—and suggesting that her officials would come to the committee.

If the committee is willing to accept that interpretation, we should nevertheless write back and say, “Thank you very much for your letter—just so we have got this right, you are saying that you would be happy to meet us on a bilateral basis. Given the importance of the responsibilities that are split between Westminster and the devolved Scottish Parliament, it would be appropriate to set that meeting up, but we would also welcome wider discussion with your officials.” I think that it would be helpful to get the officials’ view on the record as well.

If the interpretation that I described is correct, I would support the idea of writing to the secretary of state in those terms.

I do not think that the letter is unclear at all. We have been asking for a meeting for two years. The idea that we have to try to interpret the third paragraph to find some hidden meaning is nonsense.

The question now is what we should do. It is quite clear that this secretary of state, like her predecessors, is determined not to talk directly to the Scottish Parliament. We have to try to grapple with that—we cannot deal with the issues alone. [Inaudible.]—other committees have had the same experience.

We often hear that there are two Governments in Scotland and that they must work together. We have issued an invitation to work together, which has been repeated ad nauseam for two years, and we are still getting this kind of response. It is completely disrespectful.

I remember back in 2012—as other members who were here then might remember—the agenda of respect, and the regular meetings that were going to take place with this Parliament’s committees. However, those meetings just dried up.

In this case, the two social security systems are closely linked, as the first part of the letter highlights. Universal credit in particular involves a close link. We should be able to have a discussion, and it is very concerning that the secretary of state is once again running away from that.

As I have said previously, I do not think that more letters will make any difference. There is no intention on the part of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions—or most of the other UK ministers—to engage properly with this Parliament. We need to call that out. It is obvious that we are not going to get a different—[Inaudible.]

I am not entirely sure what we should do next; I know that the convener is wrestling with that problem. Nonetheless, I think that the new UK Government Cabinet Secretary—I forget the chap’s name; he has taken over from Mark Sedwill—should be asked to come to the committee and explain the UK Government’s position and whether it is going to disengage completely from the Scottish Parliament.

Whatever our party colours, we should all, as members of the Scottish Parliament, be concerned about this. If we cannot have direct dialogue on an area of policy that is as intermingled between the two Governments as social security is, where will we have it?

Let us not beat around the bush. We have been at this for two years now, and we are not going to get anything further from another exchange of letters. After two years of exchanging letters, we are having to come down to possible interpretations of the third paragraph of this letter. It is just nonsense.

We have to try, as best we can, to bring the matter to a head. We should also report our experience to the Scottish Parliament, perhaps at the Conveners Group, to see whether other committees have had the same experience. As I understand it, they have. We can then try to do something about the issue as a Parliament.

Are there any other comments? I have a feeling that most members will want to put their thoughts on the record. We will go to Alison Johnstone, followed by Tom Arthur.

It is fair to say that the committee has had similar discussions on several occasions. Paragraph 2 points out that the secretary of state has

“been happy for”

her

“officials to appear before the Committee where a DWP perspective is helpful”.

Paragraph 3 notes that she remains

“happy to identify the best suited person to attend Committees”,

which may be an official or a minister.

I would like a firmer commitment to have a UK Government minister attend Scottish Parliament committees. When the buck stops with the minister, as the person in charge of a department, we can have a more robust and helpful discussion with them.

I echo the points that colleagues have made. Given the complex interrelationship between reserved and devolved areas of social security, it is perfectly legitimate for us to ask a secretary of state to attend committee. I note that secretaries of state have attended other committees during the current session of Parliament, without issue, to discuss matters that are nominally reserved, so I do not accept the reasoning that is given in the letter.

The committee should not be reduced to having to engage in an exegesis of the third paragraph to determine what is meant by “bilateral” meetings. The letter is disrespectful, it smacks of contempt and it is completely and utterly unacceptable.

Before I, somehow, try to draw the discussion together—with consensus if possible, but perhaps not—are there any other comments?

As there are no other comments, I will continue. I hope that members will agree that when I first got the letter and gave my reflections to Parliament, I tried to be as factual and dispassionate as possible—I thought that it was appropriate that this committee should have the chance to discuss the matter first in public.

I think that it is clear that, at the very least, a majority of committee members, if not every member, have significant concerns in relation to the matter. The concerns may differ slightly, but they exist—I would hope—across all parties, which is why our original letter was drafted as it was.

The first paragraph of the secretary of state’s letter totally ignores the “shared space” and interconnectivity between the Scottish and UK social security systems. The letter refers to that only towards the end of the first paragraph, where it talks about the UK Government and the Scottish Government working well together.

This committee is not an arm of Government—it is there to scrutinise all aspects of social security in Scotland without fear or favour, whether that involves Scottish Government officials, UK Government officials, Scottish Government ministers or UK Government ministers. It is for the committee to decide how best to do that. We would not accept the Scottish Government telling us what it thought was appropriate, and we should not accept the UK Government doing so. It is our job to scrutinise.

It is also not for a secretary of state to tell us who they are happy or not happy to have appearing at the committee. Again, it is for this committee to decide how best to scrutinise without fear or favour. That aspect of the letter is disappointing.

Much has been made of the last paragraph. I will try to give a generous interpretation of it to try to bring the committee together, as that is my job as convener. Nonetheless, I find it difficult and challenging to view the letter, and its tone and message, in anything other than the wider political context in which we are all operating, in which there are significant concerns—across all parties, in fact—about the undermining of the devolution settlement.

I refer to some of my earlier comments about the very positive and constructive meeting that I had by telephone with the secretary of state last year. It is my job, as committee convener, to build and develop those relationships and find a collegiate way forward.

10:45  

I think that the committee has already agreed that we would wish UK Government officials and a UK Government minister to attend this committee as part of our forthcoming inquiry on how the Scottish social security system can act quickly to support our communities in a Covid-19 environment. Within that inquiry, we want to know specifically what the constraints and barriers may be on the system’s ability to do that. I cannot see any other way to address that question fully without getting both UK officials and a UK political representative—a minister or secretary of state—to attend the committee.

I therefore suggest, based on the last paragraph of the letter, that we go back to the secretary of state. I see that Keith Brown is sighing. Yes, Mr Brown—I am sighing inside, too. You may say that it will be just another letter, on which we may be rebuffed, but I think that we should go back to the secretary of state and say, “You have indicated that you will appear at our committee on a bilateral basis.” We can argue another time about how often we get the secretary of state to committee.

We can say in the letter, “The secretary of state has agreed to come to committee, and we urge her to attend an evidence session—we insist on it, with all great courtesy—with our committee as part of the inquiry that we are about to conduct.”

If the secretary of state also feels that it is important for officials to attend, that would be very welcome also. Conservative members of the committee are saying that the secretary of state has agreed to come to the committee. We should say that we believe that that should happen as soon as possible, and it should be during our forthcoming inquiry. We have already put in a request—I would say in the letter that a request has already been made—and the reply does not confirm that the secretary of state is willing to come to the inquiry.

We should go back—on a unanimous basis, I would hope—and say, “Thank you for the letter. Please refer to the Official Report, where you will see the frustrations and very strongly held views of our committee in relation to the non-attendance of the UK Government at this committee for some two years.”

I hope that we can unanimously agree that the next appropriate time for the secretary of state to attend this committee is during our forthcoming inquiry, and we can write back on that basis. That is my suggestion.

I have a second point in relation to the committee writing—or my writing on the committee’s behalf—to the Conveners Group to ask about the experiences of other committees in trying to get UK Government ministers to attend committees in order to allow them to get on with the scrutiny that they have to conduct.

Those are the two requests that I make of committee members, on a cross-party—and, I hope, unanimous—basis. I will put that to the committee. Does the committee agree—unanimously, rather than by majority, because it is important that we do that—to go back to Thérèse Coffey and refer her to the Official Report of this meeting?

We can refer her to our clear frustrations and disappointment—and, in some cases, anger—and say that we want to build that relationship. We can say that the next time that we would wish the secretary of state to come to committee—which would be the first time, in fact—would be during our forthcoming inquiry, and that she should therefore agree a date as speedily as possible.

Do I have the committee’s agreement to proceed on that basis?

I would not agree to our writing a letter that expressed anger. There is no anger in the slightest expressed in the letter from the secretary of state, which has been written in a way that suggests that there is a willingness there. It would be churlish to respond in a way that was inappropriate. Nonetheless, I agree that we should write a letter.

I thank you for agreeing that we should write a letter. I note, reflecting on the proposition that I made, that some members may have articulated their frustrations in a way that could be construed as being quite angry, but we do not have to use the word “anger” in any letter; we can just refer the secretary of state to the Official Report. That would be the obvious thing to do. We would not be putting opinions or interpretations in our letter.

I think that we have unanimous agreement that we should write a letter along the lines that I have suggested, with the helpful caveat that Rachael Hamilton has added.

The letter should invite the secretary of state, and, if she is not available, one of her ministers, to come to the committee. That is how things work. We should ask for her, and we should make it clear that we are asking her to come because we are doing an inquiry, and we would like her to give evidence on the specific topic of social security. That would make absolutely clear the framework for what she would be coming to give evidence on.

She might feel—it would be her choice—that one of her ministers, rather than her, would be a more appropriate person to give evidence in this particular inquiry. We have to give her that option. We can say that we do not want only officials—we want a Government minister. However, it should be for her to decide which Government minister should give evidence to the inquiry.

That is a reasonable request, as long as, when we go back to the secretary of state, we say that we wish to get the bilateral meeting with her that has been suggested arranged as speedily as possible, outwith the committee’s inquiry. That might mean a minister coming to the committee’s inquiry, and the secretary of state coming a few weeks later to engage with the committee more generally.

I am happy with Mr Balfour’s caveat. I am genuinely trying to build a consensus across all parties, and to build a relationship with the UK Government where we can do so.

I see that Mr Brown wants to come in. He may want to respond to Mr Balfour’s suggestion. Do you want to add anything, Mr Balfour, before I go to Mr Brown?

There are two separate issues, and we have to take care that we do not muddy the waters. We are asking for two different things. First, we are asking for a general meeting with the secretary of state purely to talk about anything and everything. Secondly, we are asking for a meeting specifically as part of our inquiry. Those are two different issues, and we have to ensure that that is clearly articulated.

I agree with you; our clerking team is taking notes, and I do not doubt that that will be reflected in any letter. Mr Balfour, you are in effect calling potentially not for one appearance by a UK minister, but two.

Yes.

Appearances by two UK Government ministers would certainly be welcome after two years without any appearances. Does Mr Brown want to come in?

I have a question for the clerks. Is it possible for them to give a wee account of the various requests that have been made over the past couple of years? I am thinking of a list of secretaries of—[Inaudible.]—and what the purpose was. That would be useful.

If we are to go through what I believe to be the futile exercise of writing to the secretary of state again, so be it. It is worth remembering that, on the same day that the convener received the response—or non-response—from the secretary of state, she had actually appeared in Glasgow, talking to groups there. Our invitation has not been to say that she must attend in person—it would be possible to conduct the session remotely, which makes the unco-operative responses even more inexplicable.

As the convener said, the background to all this is pretty clear. We are now in the grip of a pandemic—and possibly a second wave—and there is unprecedented pressure on the social security systems both at Westminster and here, and yet we cannot have a direct discussion. I do not think that our letter will make any difference—the die has been cast.

Graham Simpson often calls me Keith “Compromise” Brown—so, if the committee wants to have a further go at sending a letter, I will, despite my misgivings, go along with that.

Before I draw this item to a close, are there any other comments?

Yes—I am sorry, convener. Could I have a list of the subjects that you have asked the secretary of state to speak with you about? If the clerks could provide that, it would be helpful.

Absolutely—I think that Mr Brown was making the same request. I think that the information was circulated previously—obviously, as a new member, you will not have had access to that, Rachael—but it would be good to get all that documented.

I am not hearing anything that goes against my suggestion that we write to the secretary of state along the lines that I have suggested.

I see that Mr Brown wants to come in again. As he may suspect, I agree with the comments that he has made, but it is my job, as committee convener, to protect the committee’s position and to contact the UK Government constantly, professionally and with dignity, to continue to try to build those relations. People will read what they will into the reply that we get from the UK Government, but let us seek to build relationships, even if—as Mr Brown says—things do not look particularly hopeful.

I am hopeful. I spoke to Thérèse Coffey last year, and things looked as though they were going to improve. Unfortunately, that has not happened, but there is now an opportunity to take relations forward.

I should also check that members are content that I write to the Conveners Group to ask whether other committees have had similar issues. We know anecdotally of such experiences, but it would be good to do a mapping exercise of where that has happened across the Parliament, to see whether there is a wider issue for the conveners of the Parliament to consider. Are members content with that?

I think that they are.

I see that Monica Lennon wants to come in. I am sorry, Monica—I had stopped looking at the chat box on the online platform.

Thank you, convener. I have been sitting quietly today, because I am a substitute member of the committee, and I am not aware of the background to this issue.

I have to say that, when I saw the letter in my committee papers last night, without knowing any of the background, it seemed to me to be polite, and the tone of it seemed fine. However, now that I have listened carefully to the comments from all members of the committee, I appreciate that you have been trying for two years to get the secretary of state to appear at committee, so I can understand members’ frustrations. I think that it is right that we proceed with a letter that captures the factual points that have been made, and which expresses members’ frustrations.

Given that we can now have virtual meetings, that makes attendance at committee easier in terms of diary commitments, as it does for our own ministers and cabinet secretaries. I hope that we can proceed with a positive tone—or rather, by capturing what I think is a unanimous feeling among committee members today.

On the point that Keith Brown and other members made about the experiences of other committees, it would strengthen our hand if we could capture some information on that.

In the interests of transparency, it is important that we send a further letter to the secretary of state. I am sad that so much time has been taken up in discussing that point today. We should be working across parties and across Parliaments to do what is best for the people of this country. I hope that we can get some resolution on the matter quite quickly.

I think that we have agreement on how we will take the matter forward. On that basis, that is us finished with all our agenda items today. I thank members for their forbearance in relation to the extensive discussion of item 3, and for their efforts at item 2.

Before I close the meeting, I will read out a note that the clerk has just handed me—never read out a note that you have not first read yourself. It is to let members know that next week—I did know this, actually—the meeting will be entirely virtual rather than a hybrid meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to hold a stakeholder session on the Scottish child payment as part of our on-going scrutiny.

I thank the clerk for passing me the note to allow me to update members. With that, I thank members for their efforts this morning, and I close the meeting.

Meeting closed at 10:59.