Chamber and committees

Good morning. In your opening remarks, cabinet secretary, you mentioned the alkaline hydrolysis procedure and the payment being available to cover it—I think that you talked about being ready for that eventuality. What further work has been done on when the alkaline hydrolysis procedure might be available to those who receive the payment and what cross-Government work has there been on the matter? I appreciate that it touches on a number of portfolios. I wonder whether you could say something further on that.

I am sure that the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice will join me in welcoming the announcement from the United Kingdom Government about the increase in the earnings threshold for carers allowance to £45 a week, which will benefit people elsewhere in the UK by 2029. That will mean a block grant adjustment to Scotland, and I am keen to understand the cabinet secretary’s intention for that. Will she change the regulations on the carer support payment in order to increase the earnings threshold, to ensure that nobody in Scotland loses out as a result?

I hear what you have said about the longer-term work but, for the coming budget, do you expect to have seen improvements in how stakeholders feel about engagement? When you come back to the committee, will we be having a similar conversation? Will we have seen a marked improvement?

Good morning to the minister and officials. I will explore the evidence that we heard last week on the equality and fairer Scotland budget statement. In particular, I am interested in the evidence that we heard from Oxfam, which suggested that decisions are made first and then a national outcome is assigned. The back-and-forth that I had with Oxfam last week was about taking an approach in which the outcome is the central pillar, with the spokes that come off that being all the other work that we know about. Do you agree that the approach at the moment seems to be a bit back to front?

Given the conversation that we have just had, and reflecting on the budget in five weeks’ time, are you satisfied that the process is improving, based on your interaction with stakeholders? The pre-budget fiscal update in September was criticised as adhering poorly to the principles of human rights budgeting. It would be useful for the committee to understand the minister’s role in supporting the process that Matt Elsby just described and in the on-going work on how we increase the detail that goes to stakeholders and the explanation about the potential impact of budgetary decisions.

I wonder whether we can touch on the budget-setting process, because it is important and relevant to our discussions this morning and to the evidence that we heard last week. The equality and fairer Scotland statement and the “Your Scotland, Your Finances” document are useful in explaining the process, but there is a sense that things happen after the fact.

Last week, there was a sense that budgetary decisions are made and a fait accompli is sent out so that the equalities measures can be scrutinised. There was also a sense of frustration and a feeling that there must be an opportunity to scrutinise and understand decisions before they are made. Does the minister recognise that? Is she willing to take on board and act on the evidence that we have heard?

I am grateful for that. I think that we have agreed the principles that there could be flexibility in the offer to pensioners more widely and that there will be consequentials, notwithstanding what you have just said.

I am keen to understand the nature of the system that was built by Social Security Scotland. My understanding from my discussions and our debates is that it is a universal system and it therefore cannot be changed. I am keen to understand why that is the case. Notwithstanding where we are now, a future Scottish Government of whatever stripe may decide to change eligibility up or down. For example, people might decide that millionaires should not receive the winter fuel payment. That is one view. I am keen to understand why there is no flexibility in the system that was built by Social Security Scotland, or am I incorrect in my view?

I appreciate your comments, deputy convener; I will finish on this question.

On the point about flexibility, I just want to be clear. The cabinet secretary says that the system could not be changed for this year, so additionality could not be put in—the system would have to replicate what has been done at the DWP. Am I correct in saying that there is no flexibility in the system this year?

So, there is no flexibility in the system whatsoever.

I appreciate that there is a lot to get through, given that there is £1.5 billion a year of extra consequentials. The chancellor announced that the household support fund has been extended beyond the six-month period to cover a full year. Do you accept that there will be Barnett consequentials and that the estimate from the House of Commons library is that there will be £41 million for Scotland as a result of the spending on that fund?