Chamber and committees

I do not intend to rehearse the debates that we have already had on this subject, not least those in the chamber. I would just point to my earlier line of questioning to the cabinet secretary, in which I reflected on where we are. We want to ensure that people who meet the qualifying criteria are able to receive pension credit payments and that the uptake for those is as robust as possible. We are also keen for more work to be done at UK level to increase both the uptake of pension credit and the availability of such payments to more people, not least through its connection to housing benefit, and for there to be more consideration of the wider criteria.

In my lines of questioning throughout this debate and our other discussions, I have consistently said that I am concerned about the Scottish Government’s lack of utilisation of the Barnett consequentials that we will see through the household support fund. I believe that there has been an opportunity to do more. I again point to the on-going work that has been done with the Executive in Northern Ireland. There has also been an opportunity to look again at the system’s flexibility. I have concerns that the social security system has to be built in such a way as to be flexible. Things change and develop, and views vary, so flexibility has to be built in.

Naturally, I recognise in this debate the need to ensure that payments go out. However, I have a number of concerns, which I have just put on the record.

Good morning. I will follow on from where Katy Clark left off with regard to the flexibility that is available for any change in approach in Scotland, because we are talking about a devolved benefit.

I am keen to understand what consideration was given to the consequentials that will come from the household support fund. The cabinet secretary and I have debated this previously and, at that point, she was sceptical about the suggestion that £41 million of consequentials would come from that fund. I hope that, given yesterday’s UK budget, she is less sceptical about the money that will come to Scotland.

There is a genuine debate around the issue that we are discussing, but there is a consensus around what more could be done to, as the cabinet secretary said, maximise the benefit’s impact, and to see how the criteria could be widened. To what extent has she considered that? It is interesting to note that, in the intervening period, the devolved Administration in Northern Ireland has given consideration, along with the DWP and others, to how it might use the consequentials that flow from the household support fund to enable the criteria to be widened.

Would anyone like to add to that?

Good afternoon. We have covered a lot of ground and I would like to try to pull some of this together. I am interested to understand how we prioritise the identification of indicators and datasets to support revised national outcomes. Tied to that is the question whether we should have a specific national outcome on gender inequality. I think that we have begun to touch on that, but it would be useful if we could pull together thoughts on that.

Good morning. We have touched on some of what I will ask about already, but I want to tie this together. I am particularly interested in measurable indicators and timely and robust disaggregated data. Will you reflect on how the proposed outcomes lend themselves to the use of measurable indicators? I will roll that into another question. What are the witnesses’ priorities for the Scottish Government’s approach to implementation of the revised outcomes, including identifying the indicators?

I am sorry, but I am not sure who wants to go first, because I am not in the room.

That is helpful. Do you think that that is true across a suite of interventions? Obviously, we will have a debate this week about climate targets. We have other areas that sit alongside this work. Is it your view that the framework has to sit at the centre and that we should then have spokes that come off it that have to be more interactive?

That is very helpful, thank you.

In the evidence that we have taken so far, we have been interested in hearing about approaches to accountability and transparency when it comes to flexible funding. We know that views vary on unrestricted and restricted funding models. We are interested in how you ensure accountability and transparency in the use of flexible, unrestricted funding without overburdening organisations with regard to their reporting requirements. When we took evidence in person with lots of different organisations in the sector, they spoke to us about that issue. Will the witnesses offer a view on that? Erica Judge, would you like to start?

Karin, the Robertson Trust has advocated increasing the amount of unrestricted core funds. How have you adapted the reporting requirements for those who receive funding? What feedback have you had from people who have been in receipt of Robertson Trust funding on those changes or further changes that they want to see?

Professor Jung, what is your view on reporting and how information from organisations could be used better?