³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Well, I think that there is a balance here, because I can appreciate—

I appreciate Pam Duncan-Glancy’s stated view that she does not believe that £50 is a high enough figure, but does she appreciate that the winter heating payment will deliver more support for her constituents than the cold weather payment did?

Of course.

It is guaranteed that the winter heating payment will be paid to people every year and will not depend on weather conditions. We have gone through the points about delivery in February, and I have made a strong commitment that we will seek to do what we can to get payments to people within that month. That is our strong ambition through the determination and commitment of Angela Keane and her team at Social Security Scotland. We will do what we can to get that payment to people as quickly as possible, but we are delivering to 400,000 people. That is a significant number of people, and we want to ensure that we get the support to them.

The financial commitment of the Scottish Government, at £20 million, is, of course, higher than the average of £8.3 million that is spent on cold weather payments. Again, we are spending more on this benefit than would have been the case under the UK system.

I thank members for their constructive engagement today. I urge the committee to pass the regulations so that we can deliver the winter heating payment for around 400,000 people in Scotland.

I refer members to my opening statement and to the discussion that we have had. I urge colleagues to pass the motion.

I move,

That the Social Justice and Social Security Committee recommends that the Winter Heating Assistance (Low Income) (Scotland) Regulations 2023 [draft] be approved.

There is a lot that I could say about that. I will be as brief as I can be. The decisions that we have taken have been made to deliver our second tackling child poverty delivery plan, and we have sought to go further and faster where we can, being mindful of the costs that families face in the current situation with the cost of living pressures and challenges and the levels of inflation.

The story of the Scottish child payment is a good case in point in that regard. Less than a year ago, it was payable at a rate of £10 per eligible child under six, with a manifesto commitment to increase the rate to £20 by the end of the current session of Parliament. In fact, the Scottish Government delivered that increase in full in the first year of the session, and we are now extending the Scottish child payment to under-16s and increasing it further. We took the decision to increase it by an inflation-busting 25 per cent, from £20 to £25, and to bring that increase forward by four months, from April 2023 to November 2022.

Those are significant interventions. At a rate of £25 per week per child, the enhanced and extended Scottish child payment could lift 50,000 children out of poverty, reducing overall child poverty by an estimated 5 percentage points in the next financial year. We should all welcome that, be focused on it and be passionate about achieving it.

Of course, that sits in the context of the other work that we are doing to tackle child poverty in Scotland, such as offering free school lunches during term time to all pupils in primaries 1 to 5, which will save families, on average, £400 per child per year. That will be extended to primary 6 and 7 pupils during the current session of Parliament. We have massively expanded the provision of fully funded, high-quality early learning and childcare. We have increased school clothing grants to at least £120 for every eligible primary school pupil and to £150 for every eligible secondary school pupil from the start of the 2021-22 academic year. We recently launched a scheme for free bus travel for under-22s, and there are a number of other interventions.

The Scottish child payment has rightly attracted attention and focus because of its innovation as a policy and its clear focus on and application to tackling poverty. However, along with our other devolved social security benefits, it is part of a wider set of policy interventions to reduce poverty and work towards meeting our targets, as well as helping people in the current financial position with the cost of living pressures and the challenges that so many households are facing.

I could say a lot more, but I will leave it there, convener.

Unfortunately—and I say this with genuine disappointment—the UK Government’s welfare reforms have reduced the incomes of the poorest households in Scotland and pushed households into poverty. Indeed, some of the policies such as the benefit cap and the two-child limit are targeted at households with children. Like, I am sure, other members around the table, I have had casework involving people who have been challenged because of these policies.

Of course, that sits in contrast to the Scottish Government’s commitment to tackling child poverty, as evidenced in the regulations that are being considered today and which to a large extent focus on the game-changing Scottish child payment. That payment has been created and implemented by the Scottish Government—and that is, of course, the contrast that has to be drawn. There are other aspects in which the UK Government could do more—I am thinking not just of social security but elements of employment law such as minimum wage levels, which are reserved to Westminster—and in which, if changes were made with a focus on social justice at a UK level, a bigger difference could certainly be made.

Will Pam Duncan-Glancy take an intervention?

I will bring in my colleagues in a moment if they have anything further to add. As I emphasised in my previous answer on processing times, the Scottish Government and Social Security Scotland, as the delivery agency, have a strong commitment to paying people as quickly as possible. We considered whether the four-week period was appropriate, and that is why we are seeking to make the change through the regulations. There is a strong focus at a delivery level on getting money to people as quickly as possible.

I will bring in Janet Richardson to see whether she wants to add anything. I do not know whether Karen Clyde might also want to add something from the perspective of the Scottish Government legal directorate.

I will bring in Merlin Kemp at the end if he wishes to add anything, but I will just say, first of all, that what is in the regulations is what we intended to happen all along with regard to the linking period. It was intended that the agency could re-award the Scottish child payment by making a determination without application within 12 weeks of someone losing their award due to their no longer being entitled to a qualifying benefit or no longer being responsible for the child in question.

The most likely scenario in which that could happen would be a person losing their universal credit entitlement for a short period of time. We knew that that could happen under universal credit, and we did not want to people to have to submit a brand new application just because they lost the benefit for a month or two. The situation could also apply to someone who temporarily did not have responsibility for a child.

Unfortunately, what happens at the moment is that the 12-week linking period applies from when a decision is made on a change in circumstances. In practice, there can sometimes be a long delay between the change of circumstances taking effect and that change being notified to Social Security Scotland. That can mean that the agency automatically re-awards the Scottish child payment after the client has not been eligible for much longer than the originally intended 12-week period.

Therefore, the change that we seek to make in the regulations is consistent with the original policy intention to ensure that individuals are not automatically awarded the Scottish child payment after long periods of ineligibility. That change will allow for proper checks to be carried out to ensure eligibility and to check for any other changes of circumstances.

I will mention the circumstances in which there would be a long delay between a client losing entitlement and Social Security Scotland making a decision to stop the Scottish child payment. If a client was late in reporting to Social Security Scotland a change in their circumstances relating to their qualifying benefit or responsibility for the child, or if there was a delay in the client reporting the change to the Department for Work and Pensions or His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, that would result in their losing entitlement to the Scottish child payment.

An example of how that could happen in practice would be a client reporting that a child had left the household one year ago to live in another household but that, as of today, they were back living with the client’s household. In those circumstances, it would be appropriate to end the claim with an effective date of one year ago, when the client became no longer responsible for the child, and for the client to apply again for Scottish child payment for the child at today’s date.

I appreciate that there is a lot of detail in that answer. I hope that I have articulated it in a way that is helpful for the committee. I ask Merlin Kemp whether there is anything further that he wishes to add.