Chamber and committees

The Scottish Government supports Jeremy Balfour’s amendments 109 to 111. We consider that the definition of “error” in proposed new section 49A is very broad and that the bill as drafted will allow a new determination to be made and an appeal stopped in a wide range of scenarios, including where a decision maker reaches a different conclusion on the same facts. However, I am content that amendments 109 to 111 as drafted meet the policy intention that a decision maker should be able to make a more favourable determination for the client during an appeal. On that basis, the Scottish Government is happy to support those amendments. We may lodge amendments at stage 3 to make small technical changes to the provisions, but I assure Mr Balfour that such amendments would not alter the policy.

The Scottish Government does not support amendment 112, which seeks to remove the definition of “error” in the bill as far as it relates to allowing Social Security Scotland to make a new determination and an appeal to stop as a result. Although we are supportive of that, and support Mr Balfour’s other amendments that seek to remove the need for error in the process, amendment 112 also seeks to remove the need for any new determination to be advantageous for the client.

We believe that an important aspect of the process is that a client be offered an advantageous award only in order to stop an appeal. That has been the intention behind the proposal since it was first introduced through the bill, and it remains an important aspect of the offer that would be made to a client. Removing it might result in Social Security Scotland contacting a client to offer them a lower award than that which they were challenging in the first place.

Therefore, the Government does not support amendment 112, and I ask Jeremy Balfour not to move it. However, if amendments 109 to 111 are agreed to, we will, at stage 3, remove the unnecessary definition of error that amendment 112 identifies.

The Scottish Government also cannot support amendments 106 to 108 or 113 to 115, in the name of Jeremy Balfour. The amendments seek to remove the requirement for a client to request a redetermination of the determination that stopped the appeal.

Our focus is on getting the decisions right first time. However, if a client disagrees with the determination that stopped the appeal, a right of redetermination provides the opportunity to correct any mistakes at an early stage through an independent rerun. Giving people redetermination and appeal rights in that scenario gives people the same range of challenge rights that are given to people who challenge all other determinations that are made under the 2018 act.

Some clients might find a tribunal process intimidating and stressful, and might prefer the opportunity to have Social Security Scotland look at their case again rather than having to appeal to the tribunal. In addition, not everyone who has lodged an appeal will have had a previous redetermination outcome. Some people might have appealed because their redetermination was not concluded by Social Security Scotland within the timescale that is set out in the regulations.

It should be noted that, even if the Government agreed in principle with the amendments, they would not, as currently drafted, achieve the intended purpose. Some references to redeterminations have not been removed and, therefore, the legislation would not work properly.

For those reasons, I urge the committee to support Mr Balfour’s amendments 109 to 111 but not to support amendments 106 to 108 or 112 to 115. I ask Jeremy Balfour not to move the latter amendments.

I agree with Mr Balfour’s point that we have broad agreement about the policy intent. It is important to ensure that what was designed in 2018 is fit for purpose and that we review what we have learned during this period.

I thank CPAG for its work on amendment 105 and Paul O’Kane for lodging it, because it demonstrates that there are different ways of achieving the same policy intent. However, for the reasons that I have given, I think that the Government’s approach is better. Mr O’Kane pointed to the wide range of circumstances that we are trying to encapsulate; it is important that we do that through the regulations to ensure that they are fit for purpose for each type of benefit and payment. For those reasons, I request that Mr O’Kane does not move his amendment.

Amendment 24 agreed to.

The Scottish Government cannot support amendments 118 to 125, in the name of Jeremy Balfour. The amendments relate to process appeals at the First-tier Tribunal. That is where clients can challenge process decisions such as if Social Security Scotland rejects an application or a redetermination request as invalid if it was not submitted in the correct form or was incomplete.

The First-tier Tribunal can decide whether a process decision made by Social Security Scotland was right. In addition, it can decide that more information is needed to make an application or a redetermination request valid, and it can instruct Social Security Scotland to seek that information from the client.

Process appeals only look at process decisions. They do not cover the level of an award or overall entitlement, which are covered as part of redeterminations and appeals.

Amendments 118 to 125 would mean that, following a process appeal, Social Security Scotland would have to make a determination of entitlement in scenarios in which the tribunal has said that more information is needed, regardless of whether that additional information is provided by the client. That is unfair, as clients who have made a process appeal would be treated differently from clients who have also submitted an invalid application but who did not seek a process appeal. It could also disadvantage anyone who received a decision from the tribunal during a process appeal that Social Security Scotland was correct to reject their application or redetermination request.

In practical terms, if Scottish ministers do not have the required information, as set out in the 2018 act, they are not in a position to make a determination of entitlement. An example of that would be a client not submitting part 2 of an application for a disability benefit, because part 2 of the application contains information about a client’s needs and eligibility for that disability benefit.

The Government does not, therefore, support amendments 118 to 125, and I ask Mr Balfour not to press them.

The Scottish Government does not support amendments 116 and 117, which would allow people to appeal a decision of the First-tier Tribunal in the Upper Tribunal. We do not consider the amendments necessary. Most process appeals are based on the facts of the appeal—for example, whether a client has completed a benefit application correctly or submitted a redetermination request on time—while Upper Tribunal appeals can be brought only on a point of law. The number of process appeals received to date is very small, and my understanding is that, if required and where appropriate, the First-tier Tribunal may seek guidance from the Upper Tribunal in circumstances in which a First-tier Tribunal has to consider whether the appellant had a good reason for requesting a redetermination late.

As such, the Government does not support amendments 116 and 117. I ask Mr Balfour not to press amendment 116 and not to move amendment 117.

As the committee is well aware, the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 requires that benefits for disability, carers, employment injuries, funeral expenses and the Scottish child payment are uprated annually in line with inflation. However, as things stand, that duty does not extend to best start grants, best start foods and winter heating payments.

In our most recent budget, the Scottish Government uprated Social Security Scotland payments by 6.7 per cent, including by increasing our game-changing Scottish child payment to £26.70 a week. We know that those payments contribute to the Government’s core mission of ending child poverty and are helping to keep 100,000 children out of poverty this year. We also know that, as prices soar in supermarkets, our annual uprating of social security payments protects the real value of pounds in people’s pockets.

The committee will be aware that, since the first Scottish uprating exercise in 2019, the Scottish Government has consistently chosen to uprate payments that are subject only to discretionary uprating. Twice, we have also responded quickly to changing conditions to increase benefits beyond inflation, as measured by the September consumer prices index.

The points that Kevin Stewart raised are correct. Decisions to uprate impact on Scottish block grant adjustments. There is a slight difference in that regard in comparison with some of the other measures that we have just discussed. As I mentioned, in previous years we have uprated all benefits by inflation. In fact, as Mr Stewart said, we have gone further in some cases. However, the financial cost to the Scottish Government is heightened by the fact that the UK Government is not legally obligated to uprate all benefits annually and, under devolution, the funding for uprating in Scotland through the block grant adjustment fully covers only those payments that have an equivalent in the rest of the UK that are also statutorily uprated. Not all benefits in the UK are uprated by inflation.

Members will therefore appreciate that Scotland’s pioneering approach to social security has been possible only with the bold decisions that we have taken in our budget. Against the backdrop of continued Westminster austerity under the new UK Government, I am determined that the Scottish National Party Government does whatever it can to provide further support for families and households.

I am pleased to say that the Scottish Government intends to lodge an amendment on uprating at stage 3. That will extend the existing statutory uprating duty, so it will apply to all the payments that are provided for by the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018. That will mean that the Government will deliver more money for families who are in receipt of the best start grant and best start foods, and, of course, it will include our winter heating benefits—a commitment that I am particularly eager to confirm given the devastating decision by the UK Government to cut winter fuel payments.

Let me be very clear: the Parliament must not, and should not, be continuously forced to mitigate the worst of the excesses of Westminster Government decisions. That is the price that we pay for the union. On the anniversary of the nation’s independence referendum, that decision simply amplifies the urgent need for full control of economic powers, so that we can build a future that invests in our communities with the decisions that we make in Scotland.

I am afraid that there are technical issues in the drafting of Jeremy Balfour’s amendment 6, so I cannot support it in its current form. I have made a commitment to lodge a Government amendment that has the same intent, so I ask Jeremy Balfour not to press his amendment.

Will Jeremy Balfour give way?

All the amendments in this group relate to care experience assistance. The bill as introduced includes a broad regulation-making power to create one or more schemes to provide financial assistance to care-experienced people. Although the intention is to use that power to create the care leaver payment in the first instance, other forms of assistance may be delivered under the provision in the future.

Jeremy Balfour’s amendment 1 seeks to place a statutory duty on the Scottish ministers to create one or more schemes to provide financial assistance to care-experienced people, and amendment 2 seeks to ensure that the relevant regulations are laid within two years of the bill receiving royal assent. Although I appreciate the intention behind Mr Balfour’s amendments, I reassure the committee that the Scottish Government remains committed to the care leaver payment and resolute in our commitment to keeping the Promise by 2030.

Officials continue to progress focused work on the care leaver payment, including a public consultation and dedicated engagement sessions. An independent analysis report on that work was published on 18 June. That report is vital in ensuring that the voices of care-experienced people are at the heart of the policy that is developed on the payment. Although work is progressing at pace on the development of the care leaver payment, timelines for its delivery are dependent on the timescales for the bill and subsequent legislative processes, including the laying of regulations. However, I reassure Mr Balfour and the committee that the intention is very much to proceed so that the process is completed before the end of the parliamentary session.

The current provisions in the bill include a requirement to consult ahead of care experience assistance regulations being laid. That will provide a further opportunity to engage with care-experienced people and the wider public to ensure that the care leaver payment best meets the needs of young people before it is delivered. Regulations will be laid to deliver the care leaver payment once the results of that future consultation have been analysed and fully considered.

The wording that is proposed in amendment 1 would create inconsistency between care experience assistance and the regulation-making powers in respect of other assistance that are provided under the 2018 act. There is no precedent elsewhere in that act.

On amendment 2, as I have mentioned, the new power in the bill could be used in the future to deliver other forms of assistance for care-experienced people in addition to the care leaver payment. The time restriction on the laying of regulations that is proposed in amendment 2 would cut across that and would restrict our ability to offer support to those who need it in the future. I am sure that members would not want to do that. I think that we would want to preserve the flexibility of the bill as introduced. On that basis, the Government does not support amendments 1 and 2, and I ask Jeremy Balfour not to press amendment 1 and not to move amendment 2.

Amendment 27, in my name, adds the power to make provision for redeterminations, which mirrors the language and processes that are currently used by Social Security Scotland and contained in the 2018 act. The inclusion of redeterminations in the provision future proofs the regulation-making power, should Social Security Scotland be the preferred delivery vehicle for any schemes that are created under care experience assistance.

I ask the committee to support amendment 27, and I urge it to reject Mr Balfour’s amendments.

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.