Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am very assured by the work that we have done and will continue to do in the agency to look at different types of overpayments and to ensure that we take the issue very seriously.

However, I come back to a point that was made at portfolio question time, which is that we have to be careful about what happens when a number increases. Sometimes it will increase, because the number of benefits that the agency deals with is increasing. When you massively increase the case load, the number of redeterminations, appeals and cases to do with overpayment will increase, too. What we then need to analyse in order to get the proper context is, of course, the proportion of benefit payments that are overpayments or are seen to be fraud.

Therefore, instead of talking about total numbers, we should, as we continue to increase the number of benefits that the agency deals with, be talking about the proportions for different benefits within the agency. If you wish us to do so, we can go into further detail on that.

Mr Hoy will forgive me as I do not have the SPICe briefing to hand. I will ensure that my officials furnish me with it so that I can see where the argument was going. We need to bear in mind that, in essence, the Scottish child payment is a top-up to current benefits. That legislative foundation was decided on because it was the quickest way that we could get money into people’s pockets at a time when there were real concerns about austerity—there still are—and there was a need to respond to the calls that were being made on the Scottish Government to assist. Eligibility is based on the benefit that the Scottish child payment tops up. It is mainly attached to universal credit and there are a small number of other benefits.

Under a more recent act, we have further powers that would allow us to change the legislative basis for the Scottish child payment. In future, it could be changed so that it is not a top-up to a reserved benefit and so that we could set our own eligibility criteria. We would have to look at that decision to see whether those changes would be worth while or not.

The Scottish child payment is targeted. The impact that it makes on relative and absolute poverty has been set out not just by the Scottish Government but by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and others. I hope that that gives you an explanation of the reasons for its legislative basis and the way that it has been targeted. The delivery of the Scottish child payment was one of the successes of devolved social security, in that it was the quickest that a benefit has ever been implemented by any part of the UK’s social security system.

It is important that we go from that headline and look at the reasons for that. I will break that down, convener, if I may. The analysis of the 2 per cent in relation to current social security reviews is that a large proportion of that is case transfers that have come over from the DWP. In essence, they are not a typical review—it was done to allow for that case transfer to happen. What we will see in future analysis of reviews from Social Security Scotland is what that looks like when a case is reviewed from a Social Security Scotland decision. That is different from the case transfers. We will see that number increase from 2 per cent, because the case transfers are now complete.

On the 16 per cent from the DWP, just under half—I think that it is around 40 per cent; I can get the figures later—of the decisions that are made on DWP reviews are overturned at a later point in the process, either through its version of a redetermination or an appeal. That takes that 16 per cent down quite markedly, because it has made the wrong decision about that review, so it is not really 16 per cent at the end of the process. Then, of course, we will wish to compare the Social Security Scotland number outwith case transfers with the DWP number at the end of the process, once appeals have been taken into account. That work to look at the quality of the work and the decision making is currently on-going in the directorate and the agency.

I am aware that my answer has already taken some time, but if Mr Hoy wishes to have more information, David Wallace and Ian Davidson can come in on what we are already doing to make sure that the review process is fit for purpose.

I will bring in David Wallace on that and on the difference between an error and fraud.

I am happy to provide further information on that, if we can, although it might not just be from the Scottish Government. It goes back to why Scotland has the CDP or ADP, or why there is the personal independence payment down south. They exist to recognise the additional costs of being disabled whether someone is in employment or not. That is an important principle.

The changes to the PIP that the UK Government proposed rather turned that on its head, because they were about taking support away from people. It became evident from the concerns that were expressed by disabled people’s organisations, for example, that people were less likely to get into employment or to be able to stay in employment that they were already in, because many people used their ADP, or PIP down south, to deal with some of the additional costs, and that supported them into employment. More work needs to be done to follow on from the work that DPOs have done with their own members—which I appreciate; I think that their case is exceptionally credible and I would support it. However, there are still discussions in the rest of the UK about those types of policy changes.

That is still important to me because of the discussions that we had near the start of this parliamentary session about how a policy change there has massive impacts on our block grant for social security. I recently attended a round table with DPOs to discuss their continuing concerns about what was happening under the welfare changes that are still in place in relation to UC. They were also concerned about the fact that, at a UK Government level, there seems to have been a move away from acceptance that CDP and ADP were there to support people with the additional costs of being disabled. If that principle is in question, but we still agree on it, there is a degree of work that we all have to do to show its importance. Part of that is about how those things support people into employment or support them so that, even if they will not be able to get into employment, they are not socially isolated.

The figure is accurate, but to describe it as a black hole and saying that the Scottish Government is not looking to recover some of it is inaccurate. I have no issue with the figure; I have an issue with the interpretation that that somehow meant that the Scottish Government was just going to leave that to one side and not do anything about it.

I again point to the fact that we need to look at two aspects of the increases in the level of social security expenditure. One aspect is down to changes that are happening across the UK and will therefore be covered by BGA, and the other is the additional investment that we make.

I appreciate that, just because we get the money in from social security block grant adjustments, it does not necessarily have to be spent on social security. It is up to the Scottish Government to consider entirely different aspects around that.

My second point is that the increase in expenditure is not due to any changes to eligibility that the Scottish Government is bringing in. It is about the eligibility that is currently in the system, which has been passed by this Parliament, and those policy decisions following through to an increase in social security expenditure.

I totally appreciate that there is, quite rightly, both in this committee and in Government, an analysis of the increasing levels of social security. Those are conscious decisions that have been taken by this Government to protect disabled people, carers and people on low incomes. The changes and the forthcoming increase are not happening because we are due to make any further changes to eligibility that Parliament has not already voted on.

I am not trying to be obtuse, convener, but some of the cases that David Wallace is referring to are still in process, because the agency is still very young.

For example, if the agency is working through a voluntary recovery of an overpayment but that does not prove successful, it can move to the next step in the process. We will continue to see that number change.

We are always very open within the Government about looking at different approaches if something more can be done.

Again, I go back to first principles. We always have to ensure that, if people are entitled to a benefit they get it, and if they are not entitled to that benefit they do not get it. The other way to make savings is by changing eligibility. Those are the types of decisions that we will make. When it comes to targets, I go back to the point that, if we want to see a reduction in welfare spending, we have to target people and make changes to eligibility.

The other aspect is to ensure that the system is as robust as it possibly can be. One pillar that you have mentioned is the review process. Rather than that being a process where we have to wait until its end to see whether changes can be made, if issues are identified during its initial steps we can take steps to deal with them immediately. The agency has an iterative process of learning and continuous improvement. There are also other aspects, outwith the review section, where we continuously ensure, through the directorate and the agency, that the system is as robust and efficient as it can be and we make the changes that we are able to.