Seòmar agus comataidhean

Amendments 24 and 28 amend the 2018 act in order to allow late applications for social security assistance. Stakeholders, including Scottish Action for Mental Health, One Parent Families Scotland and Stirling Council, called for that change, while noting that flexibility is already allowed for some benefits. Our public consultation and our work with our client and research panels showed strong support for late application in exceptional circumstances.

Amendments 24 and 28 will ensure a fairer system that will allow more people to access benefits, even if they sometimes miss deadlines. The committee might remember that, when I appeared before you at stage 1, I said that

“We absolutely agree that social security should be as accessible and accommodating as possible”

and that the Government considers it

“worth while, even if it helps only a handful of cases. After all, that handful of cases will involve people who are, potentially, exceptionally vulnerable and are in the most difficult of circumstances.”—[Official Report, Social Justice and Social Security Committee, 18 April 2024; c 7.]

The bill repeals section 52B of the 2018 act, which allowed for the relaxation of deadlines where Covid was the reason for a late application for assistance.

The Government considered whether to make a global provision in the bill, similar to section 52B, as Paul O’Kane has proposed in amendment 105, which would replace reference to reasons relating to Covid with a more general good reasons or exceptional circumstances test.

Section 52B, which was inserted into the 2018 act by the emergency bill that was delivered at the height of the global pandemic, takes an overarching approach to accepting late applications for assistance. In those unprecedented circumstances, where there were legal restrictions in place on everyday life, the provision was a suitable temporary solution to ensure that people were not penalised for missing application deadlines.

Thankfully, time has moved on and those restrictions have been lifted. The Scottish Government delivers 14 forms of assistance, all of which have different eligibility criteria and, crucially, different application deadlines.

Our view is that the approach in amendments 24 and 28 is, therefore, the best one. The drafting is framed broadly to allow the regulations for each kind of assistance to make provision about the circumstances in which a late application is allowed, which gives the amendments three distinct advantages over the approach proposed in amendment 105.

First, I emphasise that it creates a very wide power to make provision in regulations about the entire circumstances for late applications generally. It does not limit the provision to a single principle, such as allowing for good reasons or exceptional circumstances for late applications, as amendment 105 would do. Instead, our approach would allow a tailored and potentially different provision to be made for each kind of assistance, in response to the agency’s practical experience on the ground of delivering that assistance.

Secondly, as well as being more flexible, that way of doing it has the advantage that it should result in a more beneficial, responsive approach for individuals.

Thirdly, our approach will also ensure that all rules relating to a form of assistance will be in the same place.

A cross-cutting approach across the full range of payments would work less effectively, as it would require readers of the legislation to effectively superimpose the provision on top of various sets of rules that are contained in a number of different sets of regulations.

The application processes and deadlines for each form of assistance are set out in regulations, and it is appropriate that any relaxation of those deadlines be set out in those regulations, too, rather than in the bill. For those reasons, I ask Paul O’Kane not to move amendment 105.

I move amendment 24.

I do not think that the commission actually meant that we were going to take that money away entirely. I do not want to speak for the commission, but when I read the report, I took from it that, if we are looking at means testing, the commission may wish us to use that money in another way to provide support for other pensioners; it is not for the money to be whipped away by the UK Government so that it is not available for anything at all.

The commission raised a point around targeting, but I think that that was for better use of the entire pot, not for most of the pot to be completely disappeared and not available to anyone.

As has been mentioned, Mr Balfour’s amendments do not include disabled people who might receive other disability benefits. Even if his intent was to assist, therefore, he has missed some individuals out. I will come back to that point when we come to cost.

Before winter heating assistance was introduced in 2023, the Scottish Government listened to our experience panels and carried out public consultation. We decided to provide a stable £50 payment, which will be increased to £58.75 this winter, to replace the previous complex and weather-dependent system.

Making further changes to eligibility at this time is not the correct approach, because that would present financial, legal and operational challenges, including, but not limited to, the negotiation of a new set of data-sharing agreements with the DWP. Depending on a number of factors, Mr Balfour’s proposals are also likely to add around £6 million to the money spent on the winter heating payment for 2025-26. If others were to be included—I have already mentioned that there are other people on disability payments that this payment misses—that cost would increase. That is additional money that is not covered by the Scottish block grant and would have to be found from somewhere else.

However, I have already committed to continuing to review eligibility, as we continue to deliver this important payment, and that review should be informed by analysis and an impact assessment that capture a wider group of people than the groups that Mr Balfour’s amendments identify.

For those reasons, the Government does not support amendment 5, and I ask Mr Balfour not to press it. I have no doubt that we will have further discussions on the UK Government’s decision to take away the universality of the winter fuel payment. We will come back to what happens to support people who are living in fuel poverty. However, with the greatest respect, Mr Balfour, all that must be done in the financial context in which we live. I point to comments that Liz Smith made in the chamber. She said:

“The Scottish Fiscal Commission has made it abundantly clear that much of the pressure that is faced by the country’s finances is down to the Scottish Government’s own decisions. For example ... the extent of the gap between the spending on devolved social security and the associated block grant adjustment”.—[Official Report, 3 September 2024; c32.]

The decision by the Scottish Government to invest more than the block grant adjustment is a political choice, but, with the greatest respect to all members, the ability to come forward with amendments to place additional pressures on the block grant adjustment, with regard to not only benefits expenditure but the costs of implementation, is something that I strongly suggest needs to be discussed in the round, not in relation to a stage 2 amendment.

I appreciate that the convener might wish to move things on but, on a point of clarity, of the £1.1 billion that we invest in addition to the block grant adjustment, £500 million is spent on the Scottish child payment. It is true that some of it is spent on additional payments, but additional money also goes into adult disability payment because of the way in which we are running the system.

I am afraid that Mr Balfour is not correct in saying that we have the same system, either in terms of culture or in terms of delivery. Quite frankly, Mr Balfour, we would not be spending £1.1 billion more if I was just doing a cut and paste of the DWP system.

I think that it has been a very worthwhile exercise. For one thing, we are obligated to do it, so it is worth our while on that basis. However, if the system had not been working effectively—although, as I say, it is not the case that there is no room for improvement—and we did not have an effective system that people felt had dignity, fairness and respect at its heart, we would have seen an entirely different process. We would have had many more stakeholders wishing to be involved, and the feedback from clients would be in a completely different ballpark.

As you said, some of the changes are very small. It was important that the charter was gone through with a fine-toothed comb by clients of the service and our key stakeholders, as well as by staff. It was important for the charter to be tested in that way. We could otherwise have been in an entirely different place and this could have been a much more uncomfortable session. The fact that the charter is well regarded is demonstrated by the fact that the changes are, as you say, relatively very small, although they are not just stylistic—there are some important changes.

Again, that is just a tightening up of the language. Support is available to people face to face should they wish that. The client’s preference about how their needs are met is still integral. It has been right from the start and will continue to be so.

Face-to-face support is very much part of the service. Anyone can have that—it is not just for someone who is housebound, for example, or on a disability benefit. The change is a recognition of the fact that, particularly over the past couple of years, people are much more relaxed about using a video call and so on. It is simply a change in language to reflect the fact that we have all changed the way in which we deal with public services. For many people—not all—that will not be face to face. The face-to-face local delivery service is unique to the social security system in Scotland and is a very important and integral part of it, which we will not be losing.

Good morning. I welcome the opportunity to assist the committee in its consideration of the proposed revised social security charter, which was laid in Parliament on 16 May.

In 2019, following an in-depth co-design process with people who had lived experience of the United Kingdom benefits system, the social security charter was published. The charter sets the standards for the performance of Social Security Scotland. The charter measurement framework, which is published annually, assesses how Social Security Scotland and the Scottish Government are delivering on commitments, and identifies areas for improvement.

In effect, the charter took the social security principles in the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 from high-level ambitions to more detailed commitments, thereby underpinning everything that we do with dignity, fairness and respect.

It is a requirement that the charter be reviewed every five years, so this is the first review since it was made in 2019. A significant difference since then is that we now have a maturing social security system that is delivering to the people of Scotland 14 benefits, seven of which are available only in Scotland. Whereas the original charter was co-designed by people who had experience of the UK benefits system, the revisions have been co-produced with people who have experience of engaging with the new Scottish system. I extend my sincere thanks to all the individuals and organisations who supported the review process.

It is important that the committee appreciates that one of the key findings of the process was that the charter as it exists is already held in high regard by all parties who were consulted. That is evidenced in the limited number of proposed changes. The changes and restructuring largely reflect a social security system that is now operational, while adopting more inclusive and consistent use of language. Fundamentally, the revised charter continues to uphold the eight Scottish social security principles that were set out in the 2018 act, thereby reinforcing the Scottish Government’s strongly held view that social security is a human right.

I recently visited Motherwell and Grangemouth, among other places, and met a number of clients who shared positive experiences that they had had with the social security system. Some highlighted that they finally felt listened to and treated as human beings, as opposed to how they felt under the previous system. I am in no way saying that there are no improvements that we need to make, but that we are determined to make improvements. I remain proud of what we have achieved to date.

Similar views on the social security system were offered by clients during the charter review process. The committee should be reassured that the revised commitments are, therefore, truly reflective of the priorities that were identified by clients, social security colleagues and partner organisations and that they improve an already highly regarded document.

Subject to parliamentary approval, the Scottish Government and Social Security Scotland will work to meet the revised commitments and ensure that the delivery of social security reflects the wishes of those who invested their time and effort in the review.

I thank the committee for its scrutiny of the charter.

When we look at the measurements in the charter, we see that clients largely feel that it reflects the service that they receive at the moment. However, as I said in my opening remarks, and as I often say in the chamber, it is still a very new system that we are keen to continuously improve. I am proud that there are very good results under the measurement framework, but we are determined to go further. The charter is a living, breathing document, as part of the agency, and we know that we can always, and will, do better in the future.

On that aspect, we have got a bit sharper with our language, through the review. Colleagues will be aware that the term “referral” is often taken by public bodies to have a specific meaning around welfare rights and so on. In essence, it can mean the sharing of personal data—that is often what the word suggests or implies to people. Clearly, there are complications around sharing of personal data, which is not something that the agency can do on a whim, but we are working with the agency to improve such arrangements, when they would be helpful. More sensible and appropriate language is now used.

David Wallace might wish to give some details on what the agency already does to signpost people—through award letters, for example—to other services that are available. There is also the independent advocacy service, for example. This is one example in which we are trying, with the help of clients, to include in the charter words that explain what we actually do, but we always look at how we could go further in the future. David Wallace might wish to elaborate on that.

The fact that that issue has not been raised with us suggests that—this more important than what I think about it—others are relaxed about its status. I would again take from the fact that no feedback has come from stakeholders that they wish to see a change that they are satisfied with that. Obviously, if there is a view on that that has not come through as part of the review process, I would be happy to hear from stakeholders on the issue, but I am not aware that anyone is calling for that.

That is one of the areas that I am very pleased that the committee has given me and David Wallace an opportunity to talk about, because the change was very much driven by what came back from clients. Everybody here might have a different definition of “quickly”. We quite rightly got feedback that there is no point in having a word in there that could be interpreted in lots of different ways to mean many things. The word “quickly” might mean something different to me, David Wallace, you and someone who is going through the process. It then becomes rather meaningless.

Clients have asked to be updated on what is happening with their claim and to get that information through so that they have something that is much more specific to the type of benefit that they are on and the expectation of where that is in the system. That is much more useful and more meaningful to clients than the phrase

“as quickly as we can”.

The challenge that came back from the work was to ensure that what is in the charter means something to clients who are going through the process. That did not by any means come from the Government as a wish to water down the issue; it came from the clients. Terminology in the original charter could be interpreted in too many different ways.

We have ended up with a more stringent measure for the Government and the agency than what we had before. I am sure that we will continue to have discussions about processing times. The committee has heard from me and David Wallace directly that we know that processing times were too long. They are coming down. We are very satisfied that that work is continuing, and more is being put in place to ensure that we are on that journey. However, that is separate from the fact that there has been a change in the terminology in the document.

I hope that that demonstrates that the charter is separate and has been through a process that is not impacted by what is happening on processing times in the agency.