³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

As I set out to Pam Duncan-Glancy, we continue to encourage parents with shared care to make the decision about who makes a claim. We shared the draft regulations with our stakeholder group and no feedback was received suggesting that people would be disincentivised.

Good morning. The regulations will make sure that the Scottish child payment and best start grant regulations align with our original policy intent of getting payments to the person who is responsible for the child.

The best start grant is aimed at giving children the best start in life by offering financial support to eligible families at key points in a child’s early years.

The Scottish child payment is the most ambitious child poverty reduction measure in the United Kingdom. It supports families on qualifying benefits who have children under six, and it will be extended to cover children under 16 by the end of 2022, if all goes to plan in getting the data that is required from the DWP. The Scottish child payment is already supporting 106,000 children through payments worth £40 every four weeks. As the First Minister announced earlier this week, those payments will increase to £80 in April next year.

The First-tier Tribunal for Scotland highlighted that, in a very small number of cases, the process for resolving competing cases under the Scottish child payment regulations did not award the person with responsibility for the child. A related issue arose with the best start grant where an award was made to someone who received the child element of universal credit, but someone else was caring for the child. Without the amendments in the regulations before the committee today, we would not always be able to pay the person who is responsible for the child.

Ordinarily, one person would receive the child responsibility benefit and the use of top-up powers would work to meet the policy intent, but it has recently become clear that that does not always happen in practice, so we are seeking to rectify the situation. Although the number of people who are affected is likely to be very low, we are seeking to make the changes in the regulations before us because it is the right thing to do.

Draft regulations were referred to the Scottish Commission on Social Security in September. Considering its workload, I was very grateful to receive its scrutiny report in October. We have accepted all the recommendations, and our response was laid in the Parliament on 12 November.

David Wallace, chief executive of Social Security Scotland, provided an update to SCOSS, in which he outlined how the agency responded to the problem of competing claims, in advance of the regulations being laid. He clarified how the agency would support the regulations through guidance. The agency will publish updated guidance to coincide with the regulations coming into force.

I remain extremely grateful to the Scottish Commission on Social Security for its scrutiny and recommendations, and I welcome the opportunity to assist the committee with its consideration of the regulations before us. I look forward to any questions that members may have.

I will take the second question first, which was about why a first-come, first-served approach was considered an acceptable backstop provision. It was not considered an acceptable backstop provision.

To give the wider context, the original Scottish child payment rules stated that a second applicant for a Scottish child payment who was not higher up the hierarchy of entitlement than a previous applicant would have their application rejected. In effect, that created a first-come, first-served rule for two applicants with the same qualifying criteria. However, it was not anticipated that two different people could both satisfy the top-tier qualifying criteria, which is why we needed to amend the regulations and why we have brought the amended regulations before the committee.

I should say that the reason why we did not anticipate that the situation could arise through the process of the original regulations is that it should not be possible for more than one individual to be in receipt of the qualifying benefit, with the associated child element, for the same child. Where universal credit is top of the hierarchy, only one person should get the child element and one person would get child benefit. We expected that, with any change in circumstances in which responsibility for the child moved, any associated benefits would move with the child, but it has now become clear that that is not always happening. That is in the DWP reserved system. Therefore, we have put forward the proposed amendments in response to considerations in the reserved system in relation to the reserved benefits that create the entitlement to the devolved benefits in question. That is the context.

On your other question, I have had a recent bilateral with Chloe Smith on the issue of the data for the second phase of the roll-out of the Scottish child payment. Officials from the Scottish Government and the DWP continue to be engaged in conversations around securing that data for the November 2022 timescale that we are working towards and to make sure that we progress in the fashion that is required to deliver in that timescale.

We will closely monitor the use of discretion in competing claims, as you would expect. There are currently processes and a number of meetings in place between agency and policy officials to discuss cases that are live at the moment. The existing provisions between the agency and policy officials will continue. The guidance will be published to coincide with the amending regulations coming into force on 23 December. We can consider that guidance thereafter if that is appropriate or helpful. The points around discretion need to be considered very carefully with regard to the development of that guidance and officials will be actively involved in engagement with the agency to make sure that that guidance is appropriate for the needs required.

Pauline Torley might want to say some more about that.

I thank Pam Duncan-Glancy for that important question. First of all, she will be aware that the cabinet secretary announced a significant new winter package of support, much of which is allocated to local authorities in order to help with funding at a local level.

Members will be aware that we committed in our pre-election manifesto to a review of the Scottish welfare fund in this parliamentary session. Work towards initiating that review is progressing significantly. I am happy to take that point away and come back to the committee with clarity as to where the process is with regard to initiating that review and the formalities that have to be considered in that process. I will do that along with further information for Mr Balfour on engagement in relation to funeral benefits and, although I have given Marie McNair significant information on the valuation of the pilot of CDP, anything more that I can add to that. I am also happy to update Pam Duncan-Glancy with a clear position on a review of the Scottish welfare fund.

We recently received an evaluation on the pilot, and I am happy to provide that to the committee ahead of the national launch on 22 November. Members should bear in mind that it was a pilot and part of the process of a pilot is to refine and to learn. One very positive outcome of the pilot was that 88 per cent of people who applied did so digitally. That shows that Social Security Scotland’s public-facing IT was accessible and its interfacing was a success, in that the people who participated in the pilot for CDP engaged with the IT successfully.

A number of factors arose that we have taken on board to consider ahead of the national launch. One is that some people who tried to apply for CDP were already on the UK benefit. They will be transferred in due course as part of the case transfer, and therefore they were unable to make an application. That shows that we need to do some awareness raising ahead of the national launch, and that has been factored in for consideration around 22 November.

Kirsten Sweeney might want to say more.

The carers allowance supplement was the first benefit to be introduced following passage of the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018. Throughout the process of its introduction and our experience of the past years—particularly with the additional payment in June 2020 and the additional payment that is forthcoming in December this year—we have undertaken proactively to promote it, through central communications in the Government and the agency and, particularly, through engagement with carers organisations. We have encouraged them to raise awareness of, and encourage application to, the benefit within their networks so that people can receive the additional amounts. That is an on-going exercise that we undertake with the relevant stakeholders.

The passage of the bill helped bring attention to that issue organically, just by virtue of the fact that it was the first non-emergency bill that we passed in that parliamentary session. Awareness was raised significantly through that process. That work continues.

The point about accessibility is extremely important; I will bring in Kirsten Sweeney to talk about how accessibility of Social Security Scotland’s communications and application processes is fundamental to the design of the information technology infrastructure, the forms that are created and the language that is used. We want to produce materials that are as inclusive as possible and are available in various languages, as required, in Braille and in other ways. We are, quite rightly, creating materials that are accessible.

One of the key factors in the creation of Social Security Scotland is that we want people to be able to access the service in a way that is right for them. That theme ran through the discussions on the bill and has, rightly, been an aspect that we have considered strongly in our consideration of the application process for clients and during the journey of creating benefits and the service itself. For example, for people who access the service online, our interface needs to be as accessible, clear and user friendly as possible. Social Security Scotland’s IT teams are very focused on and are delivering that.

However, we also want people to be able to pick up the phone, have a video call or meet an adviser in person to help them with forms, if one of those is their preferred method of applying to, accessing, engaging with or communicating with the service.

We are providing all that, which is why the local delivery teams that are about to be initiated countrywide are so important. They are already in place in the three areas that are piloting the child disability payment. The extra contribution, commitment and resource to ensure that people access the service and the benefits in the way that is right for them lie at the heart of what we are providing. The local delivery teams are really important, which is why I am so enthusiastic and passionate about them. They will make a difference to people who are not confident about going online, who might not be digitally literate or who need support to fill out their forms.

I will bring in Ruari Sutherland shortly, but I will say a bit about that first. One of the challenges that we face collectively is that it is not possible to be 100 per cent accurate in estimating take-up of disability and carers benefits using existing household data such as the family resources survey. Using existing survey data to calculate the eligible population for disability benefits would, unfortunately, result in an inaccurate estimate of take-up due to a number of factors. The survey does not capture certain aspects.

For example, the assessment of eligibility for disability benefits is required to look at all needs and day-to-day limitations, and there is an element of discretion in how the assessments for disability benefits are undertaken and in benefit award decisions. As a result, those who are determined to be eligible through the surveys might not match those who are determined to be eligible through the assessments. Therefore, there are challenges with the data. Disability is self-reported in the surveys, which means that they are not an objective measure for the eligible population, although I appreciate that that is partly why you asked the question.

On the engagement work to ensure that we are doing what we can, I will let Ruari talk about the stakeholder engagement that has taken place, because officials have led on that. Reflecting back and looking forward, there are strong commitments in the strategy to ensure that we are doing what is required and what we can to reach out to those hard-to-reach groups and those who are more vulnerable in order to inform them and to encourage and support benefit uptake as much as possible.

That question is slightly off topic, but I am happy to answer as well as I can at this juncture.

The commitment to the review of ADP in 2023 was made by the previous cabinet secretary, Shirley-Anne Somerville—I refer Jeremy Balfour to the comments that she made at that time. The Scottish Government is actively considering what the review will include and how it will be undertaken, and we will, of course, update Parliament on that, via the committee, in due course.

As the previous cabinet secretary stipulated, the review will look at how ADP has performed at that juncture, but changes will also be considered, and the recommendations that are received as part of the review will be evaluated. Consideration of what the relationship will be with passported benefits will have to be undertaken, so discussion will be required with the United Kingdom Government. As I have alluded to previously, the UK Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, Chloe Smith, and I have already corresponded somewhat on passported benefits. I look forward to discussing that constructively in due course.

There will also have to be active consideration of the conclusion of case transfers. Jeremy Balfour will know that, as the Government undertakes both pieces of work—starting the new benefits and opening them for applications, and undertaking case transfers—we have to consider how they will work in tandem. At the moment, we have to consider how the eligibility criteria correspond to both, so that there is equity in that regard and because of passporting considerations.

I am afraid that that is all that I can say about the ADP review at this juncture, but I am happy to confirm and emphasise that it has always been our intention to update the committee on that in due course.