Seòmar agus comataidhean

There might be recommendations, particularly in the review of the adult disability payment, that would not incur additional expenditure—they might be about improving the way in which the system works—but I absolutely take your point. You have raised two very important and significant pieces of work that could well come with significant price tags for certain aspects.

Inevitably, the Government will need to review the recommendations and consider the delivery requirements. We will also need to consider whether the Government agrees with the timescales for the recommendations, because, clearly, the more radical the recommendations, the more challenging they will be, given the fiscal environment in which the Scottish Government is working. Considering the affordability of changes will be an important next step in the process after the reviews are published.

As you alluded to in your question, the reviews are independent and will come to conclusions and make recommendations for the Government as they see fit. It will then be important for the Government to reflect on the recommendations and to look at their affordability and deliverability to ensure that, if we agree with them, we can analyse when they could be effected. That is the cold, hard reality.

Liz Smith talked about the investment in the mitigation of the two-child cap. We have decided to do that and it will have financial implications for the Government, which is why we will have to look very carefully at significant reviews such as those that we are discussing when we consider them.

The gateway review is a very important part of our process of ensuring that we are delivering the programme effectively, and I am confident that we are. Part of the gateway review looks at the closure, in effect, of one of the Scottish Government’s most significant work programmes, which is the devolution of social security. It is a significant programme and therefore requires careful handling. The gateway review rated the social security programme in general at amber-green status in meeting its existing delivery requirements.

The closure of the programme is, clearly, very challenging, for the reasons that I have set out. I will give some examples of what has already been put in place between the programme and the agency, Social Security Scotland. There is close working on the change process that will need to take place to move things from the social security programme to the agency. The staffing has been changed to ensure that that can happen effectively. The relevant people have already been working exceptionally closely together, but the move from the programme to the agency as part of the change function is well under way. I have had a number of meetings with both the programme and the agency to talk about the closure of the programme.

We need to remember that although the devolution programme will come to an end, in effect, adaptations to social security will not. Therefore, we will continue to deliver any policy changes that are instructed by ministers through the change function in the agency. I am confident about where we are at present with the move and I am very confident in the work that the agency is undertaking to ensure that it has the right skill set, which once sat within the programme but which now needs to move to the agency. A change in the skill set will be required as the programme moves and once social security is at more of a steady state. Clearly, we will never be in a position where there will be no changes, but we will reach a steady state for the overall social security programme and will look to make changes within what is devolved at that point.

That will require regulation here, but it will require legislation at Westminster, as well. In essence, the regulations will be Scotland Act 1998 orders.

Unless James Wallace can help me with that directly, we might need to get back to you in writing.

The UK Government has in place its task force, which is due to respond reasonably soon. I still hope that the UK Government will do the right thing. As I laid out earlier, it has been clear from all the evidence over many years that that is the single biggest intervention that the UK Government could make to lift children out of poverty. If it does so, I would, of course, welcome that.

The UK Government has already made exceptionally minor changes to universal credit. Mr O’Kane referenced one of those changes in his speech during the Tuesday debate. That points to the fact that changes could have been made earlier, but the UK Government has chosen not to make them. In that space, we will continue to work as quickly as possible to mitigate the two-child cap. However, I still call on the UK Government to abolish it, because continuing to mitigate the bedroom tax, benefit cap and two-child cap are key challenges for the Scottish Government.

Separate to the task force—I know that it is looking at social security—there is an on-going review of universal credit. Unfortunately, the devolved Administrations do not have a seat at the table of the overall task force, which is for UK Government ministers. There is a four-nations sub-committee, which precludes Scottish Government ministers or officials from being aware of what is being discussed at UK Government level.

In some ways, that is fair enough—it is the UK Government’s task force—but the challenge for all the devolved Administrations is that changes that could be made in the task force because of the reserved and devolved complications that we have mean that what is decided by the UK task force could have significant implications for what happens up here. There is a real need for that task force to take account of what is happening in Scotland, and I hope that that is happening. Those are the points that I and other devolved Administrations make in the four-nations sub-committee.

In essence, the resource for that is already planned within the budget. I can give some examples to try to bring this to life a bit. For example, a specialist resource is being secured through the head of organisational capability and transition that will support a newly established project team that reports to the social security and programme leadership teams. The programme and the agency leadership teams are working jointly on that. I also mentioned the establishment of the delivery and change function, which is led by the director for delivery and change and social security, and that will drive the transition.

The committee can see that there are lines within the budget as it has been outlined, and expenditure within those lines, to ensure that the change programme is happening and that there is a smooth transition.

Mr Balfour will be well aware that we have been blessed by the fact that we have had quite a stable group of leaders in the programme and the agency throughout the devolution of social security. That is exceptionally helpful, because we have the key skills and we have people who have known one another and worked together for many years. We are determined not to lose that skill set as we transition from programme to agency.

There has been a great deal of discussion with the third sector since the UK Government’s announcement on ENICs. Very soon after the announcement, I had a meeting with the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations to discuss its views on the implications for the third sector, and its public pronouncements speak for themselves. Unless I am mistaken, SCVO, along with a number of other third sector organisations, was named as supporting the letter from the First Minister and the president of COSLA to the UK Government. We are keeping very close to SCVO and other third sector bodies to talk about the impact of the increased contributions, and we will continue those discussions with them. We will continue to do our best to represent their concerns directly to the UK Government, as they are also doing directly.

As I said, we tried to get out as many early notifications as possible before Christmas. This is the first week back after Christmas, and we did not have capacity to gather all the information before I came to the committee today, but we will provide it in writing. I appreciate that we are on a journey with regard to the length of grants, but the pilot has been welcomed by the third sector as a definitive move that we have made. We have moved from something that we were trying to do to something that we are delivering with the pilot. I will provide the details of that across portfolios to the committee.

The Government frequently produces and publishes information giving a breakdown of social security payments and the reasons behind them.

The convener rightly points to something that I see when I go out on visits. I am mindful of a visit to the Royal National Institute of Blind People last year, when I spoke with an adult but about the same type of process. That individual’s condition had deteriorated, but he had not raised that with the DWP because he was so fearful, given his experience of applying for benefits in the first place, that what he got might be taken away rather than being increased. However, he did share that change in his circumstances with Social Security Scotland and is now receiving support that he has probably been entitled to for quite some time.

That is not the only conversation I have had that shows that discussions in the community encourage other people to come forward. We will see more people coming forward because of others’ positive personal experiences, which takes us back to the idea of encouraging people to come forward to get what they are entitled to. I am pleased that that is an issue. Yes, it presents budgetary challenges, but we cannot try to cut the social security budget by increasing stigma or barriers. We need a social security system that works for people, and you have given some examples of that, although we must take account of the financial implications.