Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am happy to bring Ian Davidson in to give further detail on that, but those discussions started immediately. We have looked at the issue that COSLA raised and are content that we foresee no issues at present.

I absolutely take the point that different measures can be taken right across Government to alleviate poverty. Choices have been made across Government on that point. I would say that those choices have also been made across Parliament, because, with very few exceptions, the delivery through the secondary legislation on the eligibility methods for social security has been supported on a cross-party basis. Those proposals from the Scottish Government have been supported, with very few exceptions, on a cross-party basis. We have made conscious choices to have certain eligibility criteria for different benefits or to have benefits that are only available in Scotland and not elsewhere. I do take that point.

A number of different evaluation measures are in place. I can point to one in particular, which is a report by the chief social policy adviser last year that looked at the evidence from Social Security Scotland about achieving a fairer Scotland through reducing poverty, household poverty, material deprivation and debt and considering health and wellbeing. That report by Professor Linda Bauld looked at the impact of social security payments on individuals.

The Government has important work to do to look at where the payments are going and the impact that they are having on individuals. That does not mean that that money cannot be spent in different ways across Government but, as part of social security, we are keen to look at the impacts that those payments have.

Those are the decisions that, in effect, add pressure.

It might be better. There are two aspects to consider here. I still say that, if we wish to change the trajectory, we will have to change eligibility. If I understand what is behind your question, convener, if others make the case that disability payments should be made only to people who are out of work or that they should be means tested in some way—

I knew that I was going into a slightly sensitive area there, convener, but that is important in that it shows how we are ensuring that the type of employability support that is specifically for disabled people is now available in all 32 local authorities. That takes to a national level the support that was available in some areas but not in others to do exactly the thing that you mentioned—to ensure that, if those who have a disability are able to find employment, they can do so and be supported in that. The Government was pleased to be able to announce that additional funding to ensure that that support is now available right across the country.

I would say that all Governments have a responsibility to ensure that, if benefits are available, there is a take-up strategy to allow people to get the benefits that they are eligible for. We have a benefit take-up strategy to ensure that those who are eligible are supported to get what they are entitled to. There is a cross-party understanding on that, I think, when it comes to pension credit, which is a reserved benefit. Everyone seems to be in agreement that pensioners should have a benefit take-up strategy and should be encouraged in that respect. We should have the same type of strategy for disabled people, carers and those on low incomes.

It is very important, and analysis has been done, to look at the Scottish child payment to see whether it is a disincentive to work. The evidence that has been gathered is that, at its current level, it is not a disincentive to people taking up employment, and that is a very important part of the work that we are doing.

I go back to the work that has been done outwith Government to demonstrate very clearly that universal credit does not cover the basic essentials of life. The Scottish child payment provides additional income to people to assist them with the essentials of life. It does not do everything by any means that those campaigners wish us to do. There are many calls for us to increase the level of the Scottish child payment to further deal with the inadequacy of universal credit, but it is important to have the context that people on UC and the Scottish child payment are still very much in poverty or just on the cusp of poverty, and we are assisting with that.

It is clearly an option to look at tapers for the Scottish child payment, if that is what Mr Hoy is suggesting. It is possible for that to be built in, but it would build additional complexity into the system. I go back to my earlier point about why we brought in the Scottish child payment in the manner that we did. We did that to ensure its quick delivery. Any changes that anybody wished to see to develop a taper would require changes to the programmes, processes and systems, so that could not be done overnight, even if the Government was persuaded that it should be done. I stress that it is not an aspect that we are looking at at this time, because we are still very much concerned about the inadequacy of UC and, therefore, the income that many people receive.

Yes. That is why, when comparing someone who is in work with someone who is out of work, context is very important.

The other important aspect is the work that the Government does on employability schemes, to ensure that there is support for those who are out of work to get into work. There has been recent investment in both parental employability and disability-specific employability support.

My final point is that the targeted work that goes on, particularly in relation to those with low incomes, is to ensure that they get a level of support that allows them to provide for their families. However, as other organisations tell me regularly, that level does not allow those families to afford the essentials of life. The Scottish Government faces the challenge of increasing expenditure on social security because of the inadequacy of reserved benefits. I would say that the work that we do in social security is targeted at low-income families and is a method of uplifting income to provide further support. We have recently evaluated the impact of the five family payments. That work was produced in the past couple of weeks, and it can perhaps assist with the final point that you were making, convener.

The agency agreements, as you know, Mr Balfour, have been a very important part of the safe and secure transition of benefits. They have been absolutely integral to the way in which the system has developed. With the completion of case transfers we are coming, as the convener said, to the end of many of the agency agreements. That is an important milestone that will allow us to not have to have a system in which we are obliged to do the same as the DWP because, and very understandably, the clear point from the DWP was, “You have an agency agreement, you are doing it the same way as we are.” We have discussed that in the past.

Longer-term policy development beyond the lifespans of agency agreements is not hampered by them. Such policy development continues, however, to face the context of the DWP’s policy decisions and, therefore, the financial implications of those decisions. That is the next challenge on our horizon, if I can put it like that, rather than the agency agreements.

Thank you very much and good morning, convener. As Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, I must ensure that United Kingdom social security legislation that impacts on Scotland is compatible with the principles embedded within the devolved social security system. I must also be mindful of anything that might disrupt the safe and secure transfer of benefits. I have considered the bill carefully and it is clear that, in practice, it has implications for Scotland only in so far as the Department for Work and Pensions still administrates devolved assistance, under agency agreement, on behalf of the Scottish ministers.

I am, therefore, content that any impacts on devolved assistance from the provisions that are under consideration today will be negligible and can confirm that I intend to recommend consent to the provisions in the following areas. The entry, search and seizure provisions will allow the DWP to apply to a sheriff for a warrant to enter premises, search for and seize items when investigating the most serious cases of fraud. Currently, the DWP requires the police to undertake such action on its behalf. I am content that nothing within the provisions runs contrary to the ethos and principles underpinning the devolved social security system.

Regarding the provisions on data gathering, the UK Government has broadly mirrored the approach pioneered in the devolved social security system, and because of that, and because the provisions contain similar safeguards and exemptions for third sector organisations, I am content to recommend legislative consent.

The provisions on eligibility verification measures allow the DWP to require banks and financial institutions to provide large datasets to help verify a claimant’s entitlement to benefits and identify incorrect payments. Similar provisions were included within the UK’s Data Protection and Digital Information Bill of last year, for which legislative consent was agreed in the Scottish Parliament but which fell away due to the UK general election.

On changes to administrative penalties, there is no equivalent to administrative penalties within the devolved system and I am, therefore, content to recommend consent for the provisions in this area.

Convener, although not included in this memorandum, the Scottish Government did not previously take a position on consent in relation to the overpayment recovery provisions, which you mentioned in your opening remarks. That was to allow time for due consideration to be given to the impact of those provisions on Scottish clients and for on-going discussions with the UK Government. I can, however, confirm to the committee that I have concluded that it would not be appropriate to recommend consent for the overpayment recovery provisions. No such provisions exist within the devolved system and I do not consider them compatible with the ethos of fairness, dignity and respect. I have set out that position in writing to UK ministers, who in response have confirmed that they will seek to amend the bill such that devolved benefits are removed from the scope of those provisions.

The Scottish Government did not see the full provisions of the bill until it was laid on 22 January 2025. That meant that the normal timeframes for lodging the LCM could not be met. Due to the on-going engagement required to understand where the bill and its numerous amendments will impact on Scotland, I expect that there will be a requirement to lodge a supplementary LCM for the bill in due course and I will provide an update on the debt recovery provisions as part of that LCM. Thank you, convener.