Chamber and committees

I can emphasise that, from a Scottish Government position, we are making it very clear to the DWP when we require to receive the data and how we require to receive it to meet that deadline. I do not want to say anything more at this stage, as officials are engaged in good faith on the matter. However, I will certainly update the committee in due course as appropriate.

I thank Miles Briggs for that important question. A situation where two parents are in receipt of a qualifying benefit for the same child should not be possible. If a situation arises where both parents have an exact 50:50 split of care and both are in receipt of a qualifying benefit, we would trust that the process of applying for the qualifying benefit would provide clarity by awarding the child element to the parent responsible for the child. Where that fails for any reason and triggers a competing claim for the Scottish child payment, the rules that allow the Scottish ministers to consider the circumstances of the child will apply. The evidence that will be considered by the Scottish ministers in determining awards in these cases will be set out in the published guidance. The guidance will be important in relation to those questions.

I will do that to the extent that we can within the considerations of the process and the issues around procuring and initiating such a review that we have to consider. However, we will certainly do that as much as we can.

I thank Marie McNair for that important question. First of all, as I said at the beginning, it is unfortunate that the DWP does not have a similar strategy. I respectfully note that, if the DWP were to change its position and introduce a similar strategy, that would be a welcome step forward for social security as a whole in terms of promoting benefits in social security and changing the culture, which I talked about earlier. We would like to work more closely with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on that in order, for example, to encourage a more collaborative approach to supporting take-up of all benefits. Unfortunately, however, we have not yet seen an appetite for that.

In 2020, there was a joint letter from the then Cabinet Secretary for Social Security and Older People and her Welsh and Northern Irish counterparts urging the DWP to take a more strategic approach to increasing benefit take-up during the pandemic. That letter was unanswered. Although I appreciate that it was a busy time for all, the devolved Administrations put forward a good suggestion.

As the committee would expect, I have been building up my relationship with UK ministers, including Chloe Smith, the new Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work. I look forward to further constructive engagement with her on a number of matters. The matter is certainly something that we might discuss in due course.

However, it would be a welcome step forward if the UK Government were to implement such a strategy. We could provide evidence and examples of the difference that it makes—not only in practically engaging clients and helping with take-up, but in bringing us together, as members of the Parliaments and as a society, to promote social security, the benefits that it provides and the collective enrichment and improvement that it facilitates in our society.

Throughout the application process and in communication with clients, they are advised of the process, what steps are available to them to request a redetermination and what support will be available to them. As we roll out the advocacy service, a key part of its work and the wider collective work will be ensure that people are aware of and advised about the service, and that they use it.

The information is built into communication throughout the process; it is part of the wider communications on the website and of any engagement that we have. We ministers are keen to emphasise at junctures such as this meeting the steps that are available to people if they feel that the wrong decision has been made. They have the option to request a redetermination or to make an appeal, and that is clearly put to them, as is the support that is available to them through that process.

Certainly, convener. We will pass the letter on to the committee.

Universal credit is of course a reserved benefit, so we are not able to affect the process of universal credit at all. Mr Choudhury—and, indeed, the committee, if it was inclined—would have to take that up with the UK Government.

Incidentally, when I was on your predecessor committee, I raised the issue of the five-week wait with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and pressed it as a point of concern. It is very disappointing that, at this juncture, people are still facing that issue and that politicians are still having to query it. It is not helpful in any way for those accessing the system.

On automation generally, there are important considerations around it in our system. In the longer term, there is an intention to automate benefits such as Scottish child payment where it is both appropriate and feasible. However, there is important context to that, which I will set out. First of all, analysis is under way within the Scottish Government regarding the feasibility of using Scottish child payment and its eligibility criteria for automating education benefits such as free school meals, which relates to what Emma Roddick asked about earlier.

The current position is that the eligibility criteria differ, and we are exploring options for achieving full automation. That work is progressing, but, for the sake of context, I suggest that the committee considers the fact that automation is not universally welcomed and does not solve all the take-up issues. We know that to be the case, because stakeholders who responded to the benefit take-up inquiry conducted by your predecessor committee highlighted that very complexity. For example, in its written submission, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation stated:

“Human advisors with robust knowledge of the system can assess the nuances of individual cases to identify eligibility in a way automation likely never could.”

Moreover, in its written evidence, the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations said:

“algorithms do not lend themselves to nuanced decisions based on dignity, fairness and respect.”

As we continue to evolve and improve digital capacity in Social Security Scotland, the Scottish Government and the Scottish public sector more widely, including local government—and it is quite significant that the Scottish Government’s digital strategy is a joint one with local government—we will continue to consider how automation can be of assistance. However, as we design the social security service, we need to keep in mind that having advisers and providing accessibility through having someone to speak to, which I talked about earlier, will be a really important part of the process of application and resolving issues. The question is how we strike a balance in that respect.

Finally, on the point about universal credit, I encourage Mr Choudhury to take the issue up with UK ministers.

I am sorry, but can you elaborate? I am not familiar with the example that you highlighted.

I thank Mr Briggs for his questions on that important issue. Throughout the Social Security (Scotland) Bill process in 2017-18, I was particularly interested in that area, and I engaged with the sector.

You asked about the reasons for the relatively low take-up of the funeral support payment and how we are seeking to address it. We know that not everyone who is eligible for the payment will apply, and a point to note is that many people plan ahead and make provision to cover the cost of their funeral. The relatively low take-up figure for the payment can be explained to an extent by the fact that our methodology for estimating take-up is at an early stage and there is a degree of uncertainty attached to the estimate. I can bring in Vana Anastasiadou to comment on that if you have any follow-up questions.

Taking all that into account, however, it is important to emphasise that the funeral support payment is working well. It has supported over 9,500 bereaved families since it was launched in September 2019, and it has provided more than £17 million of support to those who need it most. We have made it easier to apply, and as a result the number of successful applications has increased. We have approved 78 per cent of applications, which can be compared with the UK Government’s authorisation of 68 per cent of applications in 2019-20. The picture is successful.

You asked about engagement with the sector. One of my early meetings as minister was with the sector. We are well connected with the organisations that represent it and we have an open dialogue with respect to its concerns and how we can, together, promote the benefit and take-up. That was one of the points that we discussed when I met those organisations, and we are collectively engaged in addressing how we can improve take-up.

There are currently no targets in the UK system. I state that not as a political point, but as a matter of context.

Setting targets to improve take-up would require us to have established a baseline, which again relates to the question of data and where we started from. We published our initial estimates of take-up of the benefits that are currently administered by Social Security in the second take-up strategy, which means that the estimates may change as we improve our methodology and the underlying data. As a result, the baseline that we could use to inform the setting of targets is still in development. That is one of the key points. Any target that was set now would be entirely arbitrary, whereas we want to set targets that are based on proper, robust baseline data.

However, even with a well-established baseline in future, setting different targets for different benefits would likely lead to a potentially unfair system in which some benefits would be deemed as meriting higher take-up than others. We would need to be careful and cognisant of that.

The purpose of our take-up strategy is to ensure that clients are aware of their eligibility, to promote take-up and to encourage and properly support people in accessing Scottish social security assistance. The strategy takes a very proactive approach to supporting, encouraging and informing people as much as possible. Because of where we are in the journey of the establishment of Social Security Scotland and the development of benefits here in Scotland, setting targets would not be appropriate at this juncture for the reasons that I have set out. However, we will continue to look at the matter as we progress with future strategies.