Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am happy to share that correspondence. There is nothing to hide: it is what I have just explained. We want to be absolutely transparent about this and keep the committee updated. I am happy to share the correspondence and I am sure that when you have the DWP minister in front of you, you will be able to ask her similar questions.

I think that we are in the same area as I have just described. The Scottish assessment criteria have been widely welcomed because of the different assessment processes. In fact, I think that it was put forward to the Work and Pensions Committee at Westminster that the Scottish assessment criteria are a good model to look at. That shows that it will be a very different experience, which, in turn, is likely to lead to more people claiming those benefits who might have been put off previously. People still need to meet the criteria, but the look and feel of the benefit and the way that Social Security Scotland will operate will inevitably lead to more people applying. I think that that is why the Scottish Fiscal Commission has made that assessment.

Emma Roddick will not get any argument from me on that. Clearly, it would be much easier if social security across all benefits were devolved to Scotland. That would be simple and straightforward compared with the hybrid system that we have, and it would allow us to join the dots across all benefits far better.

For example, one of the issues in negotiation for the future, with the review of the ADP, is the impact on passported benefits. That will require agreement with the UK Government in order to ensure that future changes to the ADP do not impact on passported benefits. How much simpler it would be if we had all the benefits under Scottish Government control. The direction of travel would be that decisions could be made here in Scotland to best meet the needs of the population here.

We have raised that at meetings with the previous and current UK ministers. Ben Macpherson, the Minister for Social Security and Local Government, has also done so. We have also agreed that the mobility element review will start earlier than the wider review of the ADP. We have flagged up with the DWP that it is important that we get agreement that changes that it makes will not impact on passported benefits. We have put that marker down and have said that we want further discussions. I think that the DWP has recognised that. At this stage, we do not have agreement on passported benefits, but we have clearly flagged that as an issue on which we will need more detailed discussions.

I am certainly happy to write to the committee with more detail around this, but the overall direction of travel is to make all homes barrier free, and there are standards for new housing that will help to deliver that. We have been supporting registered social landlords and local authorities on retrofitting and aids and adaptations. On the local needs assessment, it is important that local authorities report back regularly to us about the levels of accessible housing in their areas.

There is more that we need to do, though. The media interview that I did was on the back of a quite challenging case of someone with very complex needs. At the moment, I am not sure that our systems provide for those who have particularly complex needs and who need bespoke solutions. We have systems of aids and adaptations that can be made to existing housing for those whose mobility changes over time. With new stock there are higher standards on accessibility and being barrier free.

However, there are people who have particular complex needs that require a bespoke solution and I am not sure that we have that quite right yet. One of the commitments that I have made—and I have asked officials to do this—is to look at how we can do more to help to resolve those very complex cases and support local authorities and RSLs to do that. I am happy to come back to the committee with more information about that if you would find it helpful.

As I have mentioned on a few occasions, all of these things will be entered into the resource spending review, which provides the opportunity and the platform to discuss them. It is not just the third sector that is wanting to move to multiyear settlements; it is local government as well. Kate Forbes has already agreed with local government that we will start discussions on a multiyear fiscal framework, if you like. Therefore, through the resource spending review, we will want to have a parallel discussion on moving in that direction with the third sector.

Let me try to answer those questions in turn. The Scottish welfare fund provides a vital safety net for people experiencing a financial crisis or needing help. Obviously, it cannot be a regular source of income for someone, but it can help in crisis situations.

In 2022-23, we are investing £41 million in the Scottish welfare fund. Forty-five per cent of crisis grant applications are made by people requiring help due to their benefits or income having already been spent. Local authorities are able to carry forward any underspend from the previous year’s budget, which means that the total available in the current financial year is £45 million. Last year, more than £49 million was paid out from the fund and more than 200,000 individual awards were made to low-income households. Of course, a number of councils add to the fund.

In addition, £25 million of flexible funding, which is part of the £41 million winter support fund, is available to support people experiencing financial insecurity. We recognise that this winter will be tough because of rising costs, and that £25 million of flexible funding should help local authorities to meet people’s needs.

The distribution of funds is based on the number of low-income benefit recipients in each local authority and has been agreed with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, so any changes would need to be agreed with COSLA.

We committed to undertake a full independent review of the welfare fund to ensure that it works as well as possible across the country, and it will look at issues such as funding, administration, promotion, take-up and accessibility. I can tell the committee that, following our competitive tendering exercise, a preferred contractor has been identified to undertake independent research, and we are finalising the contract with the organisation. I am happy to update the committee when that is done and the work begins. I expect the work to start imminently—by the end of the month—and the final report is expected by the end of this year.

A key element is about gathering the views of applicants to the fund to hear what they have to say about whether the fund is successful or not, and a review advisory group has been established to provide oversight of the research process. That will include membership from the key organisations that you would expect.

I hope that all of that helps us to address any issues that need to be addressed in improving the welfare fund.

I reiterate what I said to Miles Briggs at the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, where he asked the same question. First, it is obviously for local authorities to decide their council tax level; it is not for the Government to tell them where they should set their council tax.

Secondly, council tax levels in Scotland are significantly lower than those elsewhere in the UK, so we are starting from a lower baseline. We also have the council tax reduction scheme, which supports huge numbers of people who struggle to pay their council tax. Again, I am happy to furnish the committee with details of that. That scheme is available—to an extent, it is not available elsewhere—and it recognises Miles Briggs’s point that we need to support people who are struggling with their council tax. The £130 pandemic payment was also paid to those in receipt of council tax reduction.

If we take all those measures together as a package, we see that the money that I have talked about throughout the meeting to support low-income households will be important as we face rising living costs, including food and fuel costs. The package of measures and the funding that we are giving to low-income households will help to keep people’s heads above water over the next few months.

First, I acknowledge that women probably have been hardest hit during the pandemic, for all the reasons that we understand. We have tried to support households during the pandemic because we know that that will disproportionately support women and families who are struggling. Women, particularly those with children in low-income households, are major beneficiaries of the £130 pandemic support payments, the bridging payments, the Scottish child payment and all the other supports that I have outlined during the meeting.

Earlier, I laid out the additional support that we have given to carers over the past two years and the support that we are giving them in this year’s budget. Additional support is being provided to unpaid carers, with an additional £4 million being provided here and now to support carers who are facing challenges. Again, all that support will disproportionately benefit women. We recognise the burden that women have carried throughout the pandemic, and we want to do what we can to support them. We believe that we have done our best to do that through the mechanisms that I have laid out.

Let me try to be as brief as possible on a very complex issue and say some key things. First, the safe and secure transfer of people on benefits, who rely on that money, to the adult disability payment is critical. The committee is well aware of that. It is well aware of the view of the Scottish Commission on Social Security and the disability and carers benefits expert advisory group of the need to make sure that people’s payments are not jeopardised in any way.

Secondly, there will be a lot of changes in the way in which people are treated and the way in which they experience the system. The look and feel of the Scottish assessment criteria have been widely welcomed and, as I mentioned, the Westminster committee has been given those by the sector organisation as a template to look at.

The Scottish Fiscal Commission’s projection of an increase in expenditure on the adult disability payment, based on its assessment that more people will apply and more people will get the benefit, suggests that that will be a major improvement and more people will get the support that they require than do at the moment.

In recognition of some of the issues that Pam Duncan-Glancy has raised, we have been clear right from the start that there is a need to review the adult disability payment. That has been scheduled for a year after the safe and secure transfer. Also, the mobility descriptor element of ADP will be turbocharged as part of the review, and that will start this year.

As Pam Duncan-Glancy recognises—as I know the committee does—the complexity of this also involves the DWP. Any changes that we propose to make after that review will be with the full involvement of stakeholders and of course, as you would expect, we need to make sure that the DWP will not remove people’s passported benefits, because the agreement with the DWP at the moment is on a like-for-like benefit. Although all the improvements will be made, there has to be equivalence in order to maintain those passported benefits until we get agreement from the DWP. Any persuasion that can be put to the DWP will be welcome—I know that you will have the minister from the DWP in front of you, and that will be an important question for them. We need to make sure that we have the scope to be able to make the changes that we want to make.

I have tried to condense what is a very complex area into some of the key issues that need to be considered here.