³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Yes, very much so. The consultation that we carried out clearly indicated that the vast majority of people wished for the payment to be a universal benefit, and that was the Scottish Government’s intention. We believe in the universality of benefits for a number of reasons, but that sometimes comes up against a harsh reality, and that is the situation that we are in. Therefore, it is with deep disappointment that I ask the committee to recommend that the regulations be approved.

We did not have any forewarning. There is an irony in that because it is well rehearsed that intergovernmental relations with the previous UK Government were exceptionally difficult. However, even during the worst of those phases, there was an exceptionally good working relationship on the operational level between the DWP and the Scottish Government. That was one of the few areas in which that continued in a respectful way. We have genuinely never had this situation before, and the irony is that wider intergovernmental relations have improved. Having said that, I have made clear my views to the secretary of state. We have had those discussions and we now need to move forward.

I hope and believe that there is greater recognition that we are in a different phase now with the devolution of social security and that any change like this will have an immediate impact. A change that relates to benefits such as this one or to disability benefits, can have big consequences for in-year or future years’ expenditure.

We have been through a very difficult phase, but the secretary of state and I have had that discussion, and we are keen to move on and for that not to happen again. The responsibility for ensuring that that is the case lies with the DWP. I have been given those assurances, and I will take the secretary of state at her word on that. However, that situation cannot happen again, because that would mean that I would have to come in front of the committee with other matters to say that the Scottish Government did not want to make changes but had been forced into a position that it did not want to get into.

I will finish this point first, if I may.

I have that scepticism, because literally two weeks or so before the announcement on the winter fuel payments was made, I was told that we would work together and that there would be no surprises—yet here we are. Therefore, people will forgive me for being slightly sceptical about whether an announcement will result in an increase in funding.

As for yesterday’s budget, I would say yes, we should absolutely look at that. Again, though, I ask that we be careful, because I know from experience that, whatever positive consequentials might come, the asks on the Scottish Government to use them will be much, much more than the consequentials that we are given.

I respect the fact that Mr O’Kane and Katy Clark have been very consistent on this issue, but we will have calls from other ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ to use consequentials in different ways. We can spend the money—if indeed it comes at all—only once, so we need to be very cautious about taking some overall approach to using it. [Interruption.] I presume that it is up to the convener whether I take an intervention, but I am happy to do so.

Thank you, convener, and good morning.

Just weeks before our original regulations were to be laid in Parliament, the United Kingdom Government announced a significant change in policy that had a devastating consequence for our delivery of a universal benefit. Nevertheless, these regulations mark a significant milestone in the delivery of our winter heating benefits, following the introduction of our child winter heating payment in 2020 and our winter heating payment, which replaced the UK Government’s unreliable cold weather payments last February. Although the provisions that are laid out in the regulations are not what I had expected us to be delivering, they will help ensure that vital support for this winter’s fuel bills is available to eligible pensioners who will otherwise be without support.

My officials engaged extensively on the proposals for delivery of our universal benefits, and we received a record number of responses to our consultation, with more than 900 individuals and stakeholders taking the time to provide their views on the delivery of the benefit, now and in the future. Given the late notice of the UK Government’s decision and the timescales for delivering the benefit, it has not been possible to engage further on the revised policy.

The Scottish Government acknowledges that there are other pensioners who are likely to face financial difficulty and who would benefit from this support. However, given the significant reduction in the funding that we expect to deliver the pension-age winter heating payment, it is no longer practicable to deliver the benefit on a universal basis. We will continue to call on the UK Government to reverse its decision to means test winter fuel payments and to reinstate the payment for all pensioners, and I have committed to keeping the eligibility and the scope of the pension-age winter heating payment under review, to ensure that, where possible, we maximise the benefit’s impact.

Our focus now is on ensuring that eligible pensioners receive the support that they are entitled to this winter. It is no longer possible for Social Security Scotland to deliver the benefit this year and, therefore, the Department for Work and Pensions will deliver it on our behalf under an agency agreement. Although Social Security Scotland will have no role in administering the pension-age winter heating payment this winter, officials have been working closely with the UK Government to ensure that the DWP is prepared to deliver the functions required of it under the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018.

In Scotland, we actively encourage people to apply for the benefits that they are eligible for and strive to make applying as easy as possible, with support every step of the way. Although pension credit, which will be central to increasing take-up of our new winter heating benefit, is a reserved benefit and therefore Scottish ministers have no official role in administering it, my officials have been engaging with a number of stakeholders to help raise awareness of the link between pension credit and the entitlement to the pension-age winter heating payment. That will ensure that we can reach as many people as possible this winter.

Under the regulations, pensioners in Scotland in receipt of a relevant benefit will automatically be paid £200 or £300, depending on their age. I am immensely grateful to the members of the Scottish Commission on Social Security for giving their time and engaging constructively with officials on the draft regulations shared with them in April, and for agreeing to scrutinise those regulations retrospectively. Wherever possible, we will always aim to give sufficient time for scrutiny ahead of laying regulations, but in these circumstances, that has not been possible.

I welcome the opportunity today to assist the committee in its consideration of the regulations.

As I alluded to in my opening remarks, the UK Government’s changes to winter fuel payment eligibility will reduce the Scottish block grant by an estimated £150 million in 2024-25. That is more than 80 per cent of the cost of the Scottish Government’s replacement benefit. Particularly given that the chancellor’s late decision was taken without notice, despite officials from both Governments working closely on the social security programme, the financial constraints and the lack of prior consultation with the Scottish Government mean that ministers have reluctantly concluded that eligibility must be restricted to those in receipt of a relevant qualifying benefit.

You raise an important point. Many organisations and different parts of Government have done what they can to increase take-up of pension credit, and I pay tribute to councillors and to the many ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ who have done their own proactive work to encourage their constituents to come forward and claim what they are eligible for.

We have always known that the uptake of pension credit was challenging and that it needed to be increased. I am delighted that councils have responded proactively and encouragingly to the situation that we are in this year. I thank them and everyone else who has been involved in that work, including the many organisations, third sector charities and so on that have done their utmost to increase the uptake of pension credit.

I am sure that councils have undertaken a number of pieces of work on that issue. The point that you raise about how we share that good practice across councils and across the board is interesting. If the Government can do anything on that, we would be happy to assist.

We indeed had the discussion that Paul O’Kane refers to. Given that the UK budget was delivered only yesterday, we are still working through the finer detail, as I think that Paul O’Kane will appreciate, but we have said that the budget includes proposals, certainly in some areas, that are a step in the right direction.

Clearly, once we have considered the budget fully, we will be able to consider how any consequentials that flow from it could be used across Government, including on the aspect that we are discussing. If there are consequentials, the Government will consider how much they are and what they could be used for. I will be happy to carry on that conversation with Paul O’Kane once we are a bit further down the track of analysing the fine detail of yesterday’s budget.

It appears that there will be additional consequentials. I hope that you will forgive me if I anticipate that, over the next couple of days, a number of calls will be made as regards how to spend those consequentials, and I note that such calls often add up to a lot more than the consequentials that are received. Additional consequentials may be coming, but the important thing at this point is for the Government to analyse that.

I accept that Mr O’Kane has made calls on the matter right from the start, but other colleagues from his party and other parties will perhaps ask us to spend those consequentials in different ways and, as I said, the total of those calls often adds up to more than the money that we get.

However, with all those caveats, I absolutely take Mr O’Kane’s point and I will be happy to carry on that conversation with him and colleagues as we move forward and progress on to the budget.

As we look at how we could use any consequentials—if, indeed, there are any—ministers will receive advice on alternative ways by which we can provide support to pensioners in addition to what is already provided here that is not available in England.