 Good morning, and welcome to the fifth meeting of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee. We have no apologies today. Our first item of business this morning is the consideration of two affirmative statutory instruments. The Social Security Upwritten, Miscellaneous Amendments, Scotland Regulations 2024, ac mae'r Ffwllt-Gaith Gwllt-Gaith Gwllt-Gaith Gwllt-Gaith yn ymweld, 2020-24. Mae'r ffordd o'r lliwyr yn ymddiadau o'r prysgwyr, oherwydd mae'r parlymyd yn ymddiadu'r ffordd o'r ffordd o'r ffordd. Felly, rydw i'n gwybod i'r gwaith i'r Lleann Symuol,ol o greu fferерlann i mi anud ystongymwg yn amlanad功ithaniaethol. Felly, rydw i'n gwybod i'r ffordd o'r ll 찾igempwho eich hy rydyn amgar 어떻게d yn Мfartiniol, Social Security Upgrading Scotland Miscellaneous Amendment Regulations 2024. The draft Social Security Upgrading Order 2024 provides for the upgrading of benefits administered in Scotland by the DWP. The draft Social Security Upgrading Scotland Miscellaneous Amendments Regulation 2024 provides for the upgrading of devolved benefits administered by the Scottish Government and Social Security Scotland. I am pleased to say that the elite instruments provide a 6.7 per cent increase in the rates of all devolved benefits. That means that we are upgrading all of those benefits where there is a statutory requirement for us to do so and have additionally chosen to upgrade those where there is no statutory requirement. We know the devastating consequences of a hard Brexit and the Tory cost of living crisis is having a very detrimental effect on people. That is why the Scottish Government is investing a record £6.3 billion in Social Security in 2024-25, delivering £1.1 billion more than the received via the block grant adjustment from Westminster. We are doing all we can within the limited powers of devolution to protect people from the continued austerity driven by Westminster. Since 2022-23, we have continued to allocate around £3 billion a year to policies that tackle poverty and protect people as far as possible during the on-going cost of living crisis. In addition, this year, as part of our annual process to consider the impact of inflation, the Scottish Government published a fuller multi-criteria analysis of the upgrading measures available. We consider that the annual rate of the consumer prices index to September remains the most appropriate measure to use. Subject to parliamentary approval, these new rates will come into force in April 2024. I would like to thank the committee for its scrutiny of the upgrading instrument and welcome any questions that you may have. Thank you, cabinet secretary. We will now move on to questions. Our questions will be directed to you, but we are, of course, welcome to invite any official to respond should you wish to do so. First, I invite Bob Doris to answer the first question. First of all, I welcome that we are in a place in this Parliament where there is an obligation of statutory duty in government to operate certain core benefits, if you like, by inflation. I think that that is a very powerful thing, but it is always reasonable to ask when we had this debate during the passage of the social security legislation why some benefits have been picked for statutory obligations to operate and others are discretionary. I welcome, of course, that those discretionary ones are always being operated by inflation with this order, but that may not always be the case. What is the rationale and what is the latest thinker of government in relation to that? As you say, Mr Doris, this was debated during the social security bill going through Parliament and it was the view of the Government at that time and continues to be so that it is important that there is sometimes a discretionary approach to operating. That does allow ministers to have flexibility to consider all the different ways that you can support people, as the committee is well aware of social security, but one way is that the Government can and indeed does support people during a cost-of-living crisis or at any other time. It is also very important to look at the different benefits that we have to. There are some benefits that are of a higher value and perhaps have a greater proportion of a person's income involved. Then there are some payments that are there and intended to supplement income from other sources. There is a difference in the types of benefits that social security Scotland and indeed the Scottish Government administer and that is why we take a different approach. As I say, we are also looking at it in the round to see whether there are indeed other ways out with social security that we can support people and that is why we have that £3 billion that we have overall to support people during a cost-of-living crisis. I am interested to know the financial realities of some of that. I think that you said during your open statement that what we spend in social welfare provisions in Scotland is £1.1 billion beyond what we get in comparable Barnett consequentials in the UK Government. Is that the additional spend that we have invested in Scotland due to our priorities? The gap between what we get from Westminster and the additional money that we spend, the more that grows, does that reduce the flexibility that the Scottish Government has to do more? Indeed it reduces the flexibility of the Scottish Government to spend that money on not just anti-poverty measures but on others. If you look at that £1.1 billion, £614 million off that is on new benefits unique to Scotland. That includes the Scottish child payment, which costs £457 million in 24.25 million. We have got £110 million for other social security benefits such as the welfare fund, discretionary housing payments and the spend above BGAs for social security are around £368 million, which £300 million is for ADPs. I hope that that gives the committee a sense of the decisions that are taken both in terms of new benefits and in terms of the policy changes that we have made to other benefits that have been devolved that have led to that £1.1 billion additional expenditure over BGA. In explaining the decision to upgrade benefits such as best start foods and best start grant, the Scottish Government told SCOS that that will strengthen our collective action on child poverty, which I understand. If those benefits can contribute to reducing child poverty, why have we not taken a statutory requirement to up-rate them? As I mentioned to Mr Doris, this is part of the wider discussion that we have within Government about how best we can support people. The Government has taken to increase the eligibility for best start foods, for example, to improve eligibility for another way to estimate £20,000. That is a very important measure that we have taken that does not sit within operating but that sits within the changes that we have attempted to look at to increase our support. Again, that comes down to the decisions that the Government inevitably has to make about how best to support people. That can be around changes to eligibility, it can be around up-rating or, as I say, it can be aspects that do not sit within social security at all but that may sit in other parts of Government that will support people. Okay, that's fine, thank you. Thank you, convener, and good morning to cabinet secretary and officials. The social security bill, currently before the Parliament, will introduce two new forms of assistance, childhood assistance and care experience assistance. Would it be your view that there should be a statutory requirement to up-rate those in line with inflation as well? As Mr McKinnon rightly hints at that, that up-rating is not in there as a statutory requirement at that point. It will be something that I will continue to keep under review as the bill develops. I think that it would be fair to say that what is in the bill at the moment, both for the childhood assistance and care experience assistance, is at the early stages of formation committee. We will be well aware that there is other consultation going around, for example, on the care experience assistance. As we continue to then still look at what that benefit looks like, how best to deliver that benefit. Until that is done, I think that it is unwise to make decisions around some of the other details of the bill until we have more concrete policy formations, but it is something that I will keep under review as the bill develops. Indeed, after the bill, if the Parliament chooses to pass it into an act, we will make sure that we do everything that we need to do in secondary legislation, as it is sometimes more important and more reasonable to do that in secondary legislation rather than primary. I welcome the cabinet secretary's openness to that process. I was chairing the cross-party group on care leavers last night in this very room. One of the discussions that was about the importance of upgrading costs to living pressures and the challenge that it exists. Perhaps that is just a question that the cabinet secretary will agree to consult and discuss with people with lived experience, the importance of that upgrading as part of that on-going work that we are all going to undertake in terms of scrutiny of the bill. I think that that is a very important point. I hope that Mr O'Kane would be reassured, given everything that we have done in the past on social security, that we always endeavour to work very closely with those with lived experience and we will continue to do that on those types of assistance and, indeed, on other parts of policies to do with care experience. It is a very important point that we need to listen to and I will be happy to give that reassurance and if the cross-party group themselves want to be involved in that and, of course, at their disposal. I am now going to invite Katie Clark in. I was going to ask about winter heating payments, which I understand are being increased in line with CPI. I wondered if any work had been done on costings of what would be involved in increasing it in line with energy prices, which, as the cabinet secretary is well aware, is a major challenge. Has there been any costings? What would the financial implications be of that? Of course, we look to do what we can with the powers that we have to support people, and that does not just include social security, as I have said. The purpose for the annual upgrading is to maintain the true value of a benefit payment as prices rise overall. Applying a consistent measure of inflation across all benefits is more manageable and reflects people's overall experiences. I appreciate that energy and food inflation have been very high during the cost of living crisis, but it is very volatile and difficult to predict. I would also say that there is a responsibility, once again, for Government in Scotland to look at what can be done, but to be very cognisant of the fact that the powers over energy and what can be done around energy bills lies with the UK Government. For example, the importance of a social tariff, which the UK Government remains opposed to progressing in any way, shape or form, that will benefit people. Social security and the payments that will be made through the agency is important, but it is not the only way. One of the challenges that we have is an understandable but challenging ask for the Scottish Government to, in effect, mitigate for in action of the Westminster Government on energy and, indeed, on the ending of the cost of living payments. As I had a discussion with Mr Doris earlier on, we are already £1.1 billion over what we receive in block grant adjustments, and that has to come out of the overall Scottish Government budget. Of course, we look to see what can be done, but there is a responsibility at the foundation of all this for the UK Government to ensure that it lives up to its responsibilities. I am very aware of the UK's responsibilities and its failings. We spent a whole of Tuesday afternoon discussing a hypothetical social security system in an independent Scotland. Surely, that is something within your power. Maybe that is not the money to do it, but I am asking whether you have done any costings and whether you could look at that, given that those are the real costs to people. Is that something that any work has been done on and is that something that could be shared? Of course, the latest ONS data shows that food prices had a large downward trend effect on the overall CPI annual inflation rate from January 24, and there is also no official forecast available for energy and food inflation. It is a challenging area to look at, but I would say with the greatest respect to Ms Clark that the whole point of the debate on Tuesday was to point out the fact that there will be no change at Westminster to assist with energy and there will be no change to assist people during the continuing cost of living crisis. That was why it was important to ensure that there was a debate over the fact that there is an opportunity for change, but it can only come with independence. As case transfer for carrier support payment is likely to be complete in 2025, does the Social Security Bill provide a timely opportunity to introduce the statutory requirement to upgrade the carrier support payment earnings threshold? The member raises a really important point, because I appreciate that this is something that carers have asked the Government to look at. At present, there is no legal requirement for Scottish ministers to increase the earnings limits for benefits delivered under the 2018 act, or under UK-wide legislation, but I know that that is something that carers do believe is exceptionally important for us to look at. The committee will be aware overall that the most important aspect that the Government has a responsibility for is the safe and secure transition of payments. As we move through case transfer for carers, we are very keen to prevent a two-tier system where some people are on one earnings threshold due to some regulations and others that have not had their case transfer yet would be on a different system. That is not a place that we want to be in. However, following case transfer, the way that the UK Government currently looks at earnings limits and so on might not be the most appropriate or robust way for earning measurements in Scotland, and that will require further analysis. Once we get to the point of case transfer completion, once that safe and secure transition has been completed and we are ready on target for the completion of case transfer as we had planned by the end of 2025, that is the time where that needs to be looked at. The member will also be aware, as we went through the consultation on carers, that carers took part in that consultation and discussed the different priorities. In a discussion that the Government wishes to have, a realistic discussion that we might not be able to do everything all at once due to financial and resource limitations, we are committed to considering that approach on the increase of earnings thresholds for Scottish benefits once that case transfer is complete, using the discussions that have already had within the carers consultation and, of course, keeping that discussion going as we move to case transfer completion. I think that it is very unfortunate that Katie Clark came in here and asked Jeremy Balfour's question. She was late to the meeting and she takes over another member's question, which had already been allocated, but I accept that that is your prerogative. The question that I was going to ask was about the Scottish child payment. There have been quite a lot of demands or requests for it to increase by more than inflation, and I take what you have said already. Obviously, £6.3 billion is a huge amount of money and a huge increase for the whole social security budget, but did the cabinet secretary take into account some of those requests for a higher increase for the Scottish child payment? I take those requests very seriously. The organisations that are challenging Government to look to operate further are absolutely right to do so. The point that we have raised with them, and indeed I have made in the chamber on a number of occasions, is that we have had to make really difficult choices as this budget has gone through. We will not rehearse again the figures that I have already mentioned to other members, but I would add that, for example, it has gone beyond the upgrading of the Scottish child payment for inflation. For example, increasing that to £30 per week would cost an additional £57 million that would have to be found in that budget and be taken from elsewhere. Increasing the Scottish child payment to £40, as some campaigners have asked, would require an additional £228 million to be found in that budget. That is simply as members are aware, not the spare budget that is sitting there unallocated within the budgetary process. I would also point out and remind committee on Tuesday that members from across the chamber were again quite rightly challenging Government to say that it is not just through social security that we should be assisting people. We need to look at employability, we need to look at wage and we need to look at how else we can support people. That is exactly why we look at the three drivers of poverty in best start bright futures, why it is not just about social security. In summary, yes, we do look at that. We have taken the decisions that we have on the budget that we have available to us, but we look at the other ways that we can support people in addition to the upgrading of the Scottish child payment. In another year, if we cannot do anything this year, would the Government be thinking of going a bit further with the Scottish child payment or, if you had extra money, would you prefer some other benefit that you would want to move on? Well, the First Minister is very keen to continue to look at this, and he has said so in previous occasions. The real challenge that we have is that if we are continuing to have to mitigate against some of the worst excesses of Westminster policies, then that does limit our ability to do so. For example, we have already got £127 million within the £23.24 budget mitigating against some of the UK Government's welfare reform. Frankly, I would class the Scottish child payment as mitigation as well, because if the UK Government took forward an essential guarantee, for example, on universal credit and other benefits, at a fit and proper rate to allow people to be able to live with some sort of dignity, then the Government, again in Scotland, would not be continually being asked to have to try and protect people from the poverty levels that they are in. Of course, we will continue to look to see what can be done, but it is difficult when we are continuing to mitigate against Westminster welfare policies, and it is difficult to see how that will change given the restrictions on the Scottish Government budget. However, we will continue to do everything that we can, and we will continue to look at that of each budgetary process. I believe that the Scottish child payment was hugely supportive of, but the Scottish child payment is effectively, my understanding, a top-up for families because of the insufficient universal credit levels in the UK. That is effectively what it is, and that is how we access the Scottish child payment. What are the cabinet secretary's thoughts on the new economic foundations report in October last year that said that, even with the UK operating of universal credit for this year, because of the end of cost of living payments, if you are a lone parent in the UK with one child, you will be 350 pounds worse off in April this year as you were in April last year. Surely that is unacceptable, surely that has to stop, any current or future UK Government must surely do what the Scottish Government is doing and properly upgrade those things and not give with one hand and take with another, because that is £450 million of Scottish taxpayers' money. Quite rightly, I should point out, going to subsidise what is effectively a not fit for purpose universal credit system in the UK. We do not need reviews of that system, cabinet secretary, when fundamental principles drive more attitude to welfare and I am pleased to see that the Scottish child payment does that. Has the cabinet secretary made representations to the UK Government about the insufficiency of universal credit and whether they do so consistently irrespective of which Government is in power? The irony was not lost to me and indeed I am sure to others that at the time when the Scottish Government was increasing the Scottish child payment, I think at that point it was to £20, it obviously is higher now, was when the UK Government was taking away the £20 uplift to universal credit, so what the Scottish Government gave with one hand, the UK Government took away with another. The member is quite right to point out to the real challenges that we have to try and protect people in terms of a top-up when universal credit is at the level that it is at. That is exactly why we have made the calls continue to do so around an essential guarantee to ensure that people can, and the clues in the name, to be able to afford the essentials in life and unfortunately to date that has been rebuffed by the UK Government. Okay, that concludes our questions. Before I move on to agenda item 2, I just want to pick up the point that John Mason made in terms of the allocation of questions. It was agreed in this committee that the pre-brief, which starts at 8.45, is when we allocate or choose whoever wants to ask questions to the relevant evidence and panel that is there on the day. Unfortunately, Katie did come in late today and I assumed that she was asking a supplementary on the back of Paul O'Kane's question. So can I apologise to Jeremy that that question had already been taken? So just to make that quite clear to everybody in the committee, thanks. So moving on. Now agenda item 2 is the formal consideration of motion S6M-1201. The social justice and social security committee recommends that the social security upgrading, miscellaneous amendments, Scotland's regulations 2024 draft be approved. I invite the cabinet secretary to speak and move the motion. Thank you. I now invite contributions from members. No? Okay. I now invite the cabinet secretary to sum up and respond to the debate. No comment, convener. Thank you. The question is that motion S6M-1201, in the name of Shirley-Anne Somerville, be approved. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. Thank you. Moving on to agenda item 3. Agenda item 3 is the formal consideration of motion S6M-1202. The social justice and social security committee recommends that the social security upgrading, miscellaneous amendments, Scotland's regulations 2024 draft be approved. I invite the cabinet secretary to speak and to move the motion. Formally moved, convener. Thank you. I now invite contributions from members. I now invite the cabinet secretary to sum up and respond to the debate. Well, there's nothing to comment on. Sorry. Yeah, nothing to add, convener. Thank you. The question is that motion S6M-1202, in the name of Shirley-Anne Somerville, be approved. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. The committee will report on the outcome of the two instruments in due course. I invite the committee to delegate authority to me, convener, to approve drafts of the reports for publication. Do members agree? Can I thank the cabinet secretary and thank your officials as well? Moving on to agenda item 4. Our last item is consideration of a Scottish statutory instrument, the council tax reduction Scotland amendment regulations 2024. That instrument is subject to the negative procedure, and the purpose of the instrument is to update premiums and allowances used in the council tax reduction scheme when the level of council tax reduction a household should receive is calculated. Do members have any comments on the instrument? I invite Bob Doris to come in. I am happy to defer to Mr Balford. I understand that this is another example of the Scottish Government stepping in to providing support that otherwise would not be available elsewhere in the UK, so support it. Jeremy, would you like to come in? Again, I do not know if the cabinet secretary wants to comment on that, or we will just take your comments on the report. I invite the committee to agree that it does not wish to make any further recommendations in relation to the instrument. Our members are content to know the instrument. That concludes our business for today, and I formally close the meeting.