Chamber and committees

The service commits to giving people the advocacy support that they need, where and when they need it. That is in the contract.

I am pleased to be here to talk about our new social security advocacy service standards. I am also pleased to confirm—as I have done in writing to the committee—that, following a regulated procurement process, we have now awarded the first four-year contract for the provision of an independent advocacy service, as required by the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018. I will provide a little more detail on that shortly.

First, I will give a brief overview of the amendment that is sought by the Social Security (Advocacy Service Standards) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2021. The social security advocacy service standards set out the standard of service that independent third-party organisations are required to provide on behalf of the Scottish Government.

The current advocacy service standards, which were published in January 2020, restrict providers to the use of individual instructed advocacy. Such advocacy is where the individual is able to directly communicate to the advocacy worker what outcomes they want, as well as the actions that they would like to be taken. Through extensive consultation with stakeholders on our advocacy short-life working group, which included the Scottish Independent Advocacy Alliance, Citizens Advice Scotland and several independent advocacy providers, it became clear to us that removing the restriction to instructed advocacy in the service standards would increase the scope of the service and build on our human rights-based approach by making the service more widely accessible.

Such an amendment to the service standards was therefore suggested by stakeholders in the advocacy sector, and it enjoys the unanimous support of the members of the advocacy short-life working group. We are pleased to respond to that suggestion by bringing the proposed amendment before the committee today. Crucially, it will allow providers to offer non-instructed advocacy, which is an holistic approach whereby the advocate combines alternative methods of communication with observations of the client and their situation, and information from significant others in the client’s life.

That leads to a more person-centred approach in which providers are able to offer the forms of advocacy that are most appropriate to each client according to their circumstances. That will increase the scope of the service, reduce any potential for confusion and avoid potentially inconsistent outcomes. I am sure that the committee agrees that that is a positive step towards providing a more inclusive service and helping disabled people to access social security.

The service standards are designed to be applied in practice. I wrote to the committee yesterday to provide an update on delivery of the independent advocacy service and the organisation that will be responsible for implementing the standards. As I mentioned, we have now concluded the regulated procurement process to appoint a national supplier, and I am delighted to say that we will work with VoiceAbility to fulfil that vital role. VoiceAbility is a charity with 40 years’ experience of delivering independent advocacy services. It brings a deep knowledge of the sector and a wealth of experience in supporting people with disabilities to get the outcomes that they deserve.

VoiceAbility’s delivery model promises a number of positive impacts for the people of Scotland, including commitments to establish a new base and bespoke training centre in Glasgow; create up to 100 new jobs and three apprenticeships as devolved benefits are introduced; have a clear presence in all health boards at launch; recruit 75 per cent of its workforce from people who are long-term unemployed or economically inactive; sign the Scottish business pledge; and pay at least the real living wage.

That is an important step in the delivery of the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 and a substantial contract award, with the Scottish Government committing to investing £20 million in the service over the next four years.

I am happy to provide any further information on the matter that would be of value to members.

We will continually review the service as part of the contract. There will be no formal process of parliamentary updates, but I will, of course, keep the committee updated and the committee, on behalf of Parliament, will be able to make inquiries of VoiceAbility about its performance. I can assure you that, as with any contract that is procured for services, we will continually review the contract, consider performance and ensure that the service provider—in this case, VoiceAbility—is not only fulfilling what needs to be met in our contract but meeting the standards.

Do you want to say anything more about that, Ruari? The contract contains some significant reporting aspects.

Pam Duncan-Glancy is right that, as a Government, we want to target our support at those who need it most, which is why we have committed to and brought forward the bill, which will enable us to pay a double supplement in December and give that added support. We have secured the budget for that.

I am sure that Pam Duncan-Glancy will appreciate that I cannot speak to the evidence that was given in another committee, because I have not seen it.

It is important to remember that section 2 will allow us the flexibility to consider the need for increases in future. I appreciate that that point may relate to other amendments that we will consider in due course. Any increase must be dealt with through budget processes alongside considerations of funding for wider support for carers. That could be improved by any UK Government move to increase the underlying level of carers allowance, which we would welcome.

With regard to amendment 3 in particular, the important consideration is the challenge of the resource that is available in this year’s budget. I cannot support amendment 3, because any further increase this year would require resource to be allocated from elsewhere in the budget that was agreed by Parliament, which would have repercussions in other parts of Government spending. We cannot do that recklessly; the matter needs to be considered.

I am grateful that, following discussions on those points, Maggie Chapman is content not to press the amendment on the basis of the arguments that I put forward. To allow responsible consideration of the budget in the round, we cannot agree to the amendment at this point. Therefore, I urge members to reject it, and to focus on making sure that the December double supplement for carers, which is provided for in the budget, gets to those who are entitled to carers allowance in good time.

Yes, it is, in terms of what the Scottish Government will fund. I ask Ruari Sutherland to talk about what happens if people act on a preference.

No, because we are currently delivering that with the DWP under an agency agreement. The costs are to ensure that we have the appropriate staffing for a strong foundation, and so that we can deliver social security in Scotland proficiently through the period ahead, as we have done since 2018. We are on a trajectory to have similar costs to the DWP for administering social security. We are doing the work in an appropriately efficient and professional manner, as you would expect.

I do not think that the questions are fully relevant to the LCM, but I will be happy to follow up on that with Mr Briggs and the committee afterwards. I am aware that there has been correspondence or parliamentary questions on the matter from Mr Briggs.

The estimates have increased, but the delivery of social security in Scotland on the trajectory that we are on at the moment means that spend on the delivery of social security will be similar to that of the DWP.

Remember that we are recruiting staff to deliver benefits, as the people of Scotland asked for in elections, and which we committed to as parties through the 2018 act. We are creating good employment opportunities and wider macroeconomic benefits. There is significant benefit—from a client’s perspective and from the wider perspective of the communities of Scotland—from what we are doing in social security .

I thank Pam Duncan-Glancy for her support for the course of action, and for that important question.

You will be aware of the significant resource that has been invested in capacity building, structures, IT equipment and systems, and—of course—in the agency itself. There has been significant investment in staff, which is ongoing; the recruitment process continues at pace. Significant resources are going into Social Security Scotland.

I am not fully sighted on all the evidence that the committee heard this morning, due to having been on my way to the committee. I am, of course, aware of stakeholders’ various considerations in terms of what the wider social security programme looks like, and of what we are doing in the round.

The social security system is at a crucial point of delivery. Roll-out this year in the months ahead of the child disability payment will be a significant milestone, and the adult disability payment will come next year. We will undertake safe and secure transfer of existing cases as quickly, safely and securely as possible. We have to do that in a way that builds strong foundations for the system and—this is most important—delivers payments to people who are expecting them. We will need that capacity and strong foundation in the years ahead to ensure that we do not have a two-tier system in which some people in Scotland benefit more than others as a result of case transfer. There are all those considerations.

I feel that now is not the time to talk about disability benefits in the round, although I am sure that it is something that we will talk about collectively in the weeks ahead. The Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Housing and Local Government is coming to committee next week; I wonder whether the wider programme will be something that you wish to discuss with her.

In Social Security Scotland we are building an agile electronic system through which people can make paper-based applications if they wish. That is because we are committed to that through the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018, in which there is the principle of inclusivity in order to ensure that people can apply in the way that is most suited to them. Such applications are appropriately processed into our wider IT infrastructure.

The 11 benefits that we are delivering, 7 of which are new, are electronically managed and organised. The paper-based cases are historical cases for which responsibility has been devolved under the Scotland Act 2016. We are administering them under an agency agreement for a number of reasons, among which are the practicalities that have been highlighted.

I will bring in officials in a minute. As I said in my opening remarks, the industrial death benefit was closed some time ago, which is why cases are in paper format.

Matthew Duff might want to say more.

Thank you. I am grateful for the opportunity to join you to discuss the legislative consent memorandum and the associated legislative consent motion, which was lodged in the Scottish Parliament on 10 September. I am grateful for your swift consideration of the issue at short notice.

As you know, the UK Government has introduced legislation to suspend the triple-lock formula for calculating the amount by which state pensions and benefits that are linked to earnings should be uprated for the year 2022-23. The Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill was introduced on 8 September. It gives UK ministers powers to uprate pensions and benefits that are linked to earnings by 2.5 per cent, or in line with the increase in prices, instead of in line with annual earnings.

It also proposes to give equivalent powers to the Scottish ministers to uprate industrial death benefit in Scotland. The provision will affect about 300 recipients of industrial death benefit in Scotland. IDB is devolved, but is currently administered by the Department for Work and Pensions under an agency agreement. Industrial death benefit is paid to the spouse or dependent of someone who died as the result of an industrial accident or disease. It was abolished in 1988 for deaths occurring after 1988, and new claims were abolished in 2012.

We were informed of the decision by the UK Government only on 6 September. In light of the tight timescales that have been afforded to us, the need to protect the payments of the 300 IDB clients, and our overriding commitment to safe and secure delivery of Scottish disability benefits, we have considered carefully how to proceed.

I consider an LCM to be the right course of action to enable uprating of IDB, which is required under the terms of our agency agreement with the UK Government. If the agency agreement with DWP were to be terminated, we would have, in a short space of time, to make arrangements to administer IDB, which would be very challenging.

Because industrial death benefit can be paid only when it relates to a death that occurred before 1988, many of the 300 cases are more than 30 years old and are all held on paper files. If the Scottish Government were to decide to administer IDB according to the timescale, it would need to identify relevant Scottish cases and transfer them from clerical files to a new system, which would be time consuming and would require significant resource. To build, in effect, a new benefit, and to progress primary legislation on an expedited basis within the timescale, when the benefit delivery programme is already operating close to capacity, with child disability payment, adult disability payment and Scottish child payment roll-out all happening this year and next, would not be achievable.

Designing, building, procuring, securing the necessary agreements and collecting the required data for a new system would require significant time and resource. For context—this is important—the legislation to introduce the Scottish child payment took 17 months, and the carers allowance supplement took two years from announcement to delivery. Therefore, for practical and delivery reasons, on balance I consider an LCM to be the right course of action.

Moreover, the only alternative legal mechanism to a legislative consent motion would be to introduce equivalent Scottish primary legislation. We would need to have primary legislation in place before the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions concludes her review of benefit rates by mid-November, in order to ensure that the 300 recipients of the benefit would not fall out of payment. That would mean that scrutiny would have to take place under an emergency timetable with all stages of the bill happening in one day after the October recess. The agreement of the UK law officers, the Lord Advocate and the Secretary of State for Scotland to expedited royal procedures would be required so that the Bill could be similarly enacted by 26 November. Even if that were feasible, I would not consider it to be good use of parliamentary time.

Overall, co-operation in this instance is therefore necessary to maintain the agency agreement for IDB, and to protect the delivery of our existing programme. I emphasise that we continue to support maintaining of the triple lock, and that we oppose the decision to suspend it by the UK Government. It is a decision that we have no control over, and of which we had very little notice.

I should also say for clarification that the committee will have noted the letter from the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, which has considered the LCM and deems it to be acceptable in the circumstances. The DPLR Committee has also identified a minor error in the memorandum, at paragraphs 4 and 8, which refer to the current bill creating a discretionary power to uprate, whereas the bill places a duty to uprate on the secretary of state and—in devolved areas—on the Scottish ministers. Letters to this and the DPLR Committee will be forthcoming to clarify the point.

Thank you, convener. I look forward to questions.