Seòmar agus comataidhean

That follows on from the points that I made to Jeremy Balfour. There are very different types of benefits. When we move from a single-payment benefit, such as the young carer grant, or move forward with aspects of the Scottish child payment or disability payments, we see that they are all very different, and the same dates will not necessarily work for everything. However, as I have said, I am more than happy to see whether there is anything that can be done to assist, if there is any confusion.

It is clear that we developed social security in an iterative fashion—and quite rightly so. We dealt with things benefit by benefit. It is helpful at this point to have an opportunity to take a little bit of a step back and hear from clients with experience of going through the system and from representatives, such as citizens advice and welfare rights officers, about whether they are finding areas that are overly complex.

There might be very good reasons why the different dates are in place for clients to apply or for Social Security Scotland to undertake work. I give as an example the fact that the length of time that it will take the agency to carry out a redetermination for a single-payment benefit is very different from the time that it will take for, say, adult disability payments, for which a great deal of evidence and supporting information might have to be worked through. It is very important that there is no one-size-fits-all policy. There should be an openness from the Government and the agency to hear from clients with experience and people who have assisted them to see whether anything can be done to make the system easier.

As we have said from the start, one of the key things that we want to do with social security is to make it as simple as possible for people to apply for it and ensure that there are no barriers. That is very important. What we do about dates might be one small aspect of that, but it is an important aspect that we are happy to look at.

It is important that we share information with the DWP when that is in the best interests of the client and when due process is followed. There are back-office systems to facilitate the sharing of information both for the case transfers that you mentioned and for new applications.

The powers in the bill will allow the speedy payment of a benefit if an appointee is already in place with the DWP, but it is important that the agency then goes through its own process, because the system that we have established in Scotland includes more checks than the DWP system. If we simply accepted a DWP appointee and did not have our own processes in place, that would, in effect, go against something that we deliberated long and hard about in 2018, which was the level of assurance that we would need to have about appointees, and we would have a less rigorous system.

In essence, it would be easier not to have two processes. However—noting that we, quite rightly, would not expect the DWP to change its system to match ours because it is perfectly entitled to make its own decisions—that would require our agency to reduce the number of checks that we have in place at the moment, when the level of checks for appointees has previously been discussed and agreed.

On that basis, and because I hope we still agree that we have the correct level of checks in Scotland, we must ensure that we have the powers in the bill to recognise the DWP appointee and then move speedily to the checks that the agency would need to carry out, so that we can move forward on the basis of the Scottish system.

I hope that that explanation of why we have two different levels of checks in the two departments makes sense.

We have taken that issue really seriously, as I have looked at the evidence. I will continue to repeat the point that we have to do everything on the basis of dignity, fairness and respect. That includes how we do our audit.

Audit is exceptionally important because of our requirement to ensure—quite rightly—that we are using public funds correctly. For example, I point to Audit Scotland’s evidence, which rightly establishes that the agency has in place the correct audit functions.

We have looked very carefully at the options around audit. We have not gone for a complete replica of what the DWP does, for example, although we did look at that, because there are lessons to learn from systems that are currently in place.

I suppose that I would say, in answer to one of the overarching concerns that people have about the requirement, that we are talking about audit, not about tackling fraud. In an audit, one might see information about a case that could lead to a concern that there might be fraud. I suggest that, if the audit system was entirely voluntary, someone who was committing fraud would not volunteer to be audited under that system. On that basis, there would be a self-selected sample of people, which would not give the agency the ability to carry out a full audit process.

We looked at different ways in which that could be done. We undertook a desk-based review of a random sample of cases with voluntary interviews. I hope that I have shown Mr Mason the slight difficulty with that. We also did a desk-based review of a random sample of cases and followed that up with mandatory interviews.

I want to reassure members about what happens in the audit process, which is where the important safeguarding measures come into play. We do not just take away a person’s benefit if they do not engage; we ensure that we work with the client so that they understand the importance of the audit process, which is done in a supportive fashion.

I hope that that gives you a high-level explanation of why we have come to the decisions that we have made and why I went through the process that I had to go through with the detailed suggestions that we have made. If there are particular points that you want to pick up on, I am happy to do so, or I will bring in my colleagues.

We can certainly check that, Mr Doris, in case the assumption that I am working on is incorrect.

Convener, with your indulgence, I will just say that the regulations that we were talking about will be subject to affirmative procedure.

First, it is an important principle that we should have that in our system. As I suggested in my opening remarks, recovery of compensation is a very specialised function, so, as we have drawn the financial memorandum together, we have looked at what happens in Northern Ireland and other systems and have attempted to compare that, as best we can, with what a Scottish system would look like. That has led to a wide range of estimated implementation and running costs. It is important that, as we are required to do, we consider the overestimations that are built into delivery and that we produce the financial memorandum on that basis.

The detailed analysis of the requirements that will be necessary to carry out the function that includes working with the DWP will allow us to have a much more accurate account of the costs once that work has been undertaken with the DWP. We would be happy to provide the committee with further information on that should the bill become an act and we move forward with the compensation scheme. However, I point out that it is also important to bear in mind that the delivery of that function is an important function of a social security system.

That is such an important point. I go back to the issue of continuous improvement, which I have mentioned a few times now. We are now working through the processes, although they are still very small in number, given the number of cases involving redeterminations and appeals. I appreciate that the committee is examining those issues in other evidence sessions; I believe that you have the agency and the tribunals service coming before you next week. We, too, will look to continuously improve what the system looks like—whether that has to be done through a bill or whether it is about practices, and I am sure that, if it wishes to do so, the committee will investigate that with the agency in relation to operational matters.

Of course, we look to do what we can within the powers that we have to support people, and that does not just include social security, as I said.

The purpose of annual uprating is to maintain the true value of a benefit payment as prices rise overall. Applying a consistent measure of inflation across all benefits is more manageable and reflects people’s overall experiences. I appreciate that energy and food inflation has been high during the cost of living crisis, but it is volatile and difficult to predict.

The Government in Scotland has a responsibility to consider what can be done, but we must also be cognisant of the fact that the powers over energy and what can be done on energy bills lie with the UK Government. I refer, for example, to the social tariff, which the UK Government remains opposed to progressing in any way, shape or form that will benefit people.

The social security payments that will be made through Social Security Scotland are important, but they are not the only way to address the issue. One of the challenges that we have is an understandable but challenging ask for the Scottish Government to mitigate the inaction of the Westminster Government on energy and, indeed, on the ending of the cost of living payments. As I discussed with Mr Doris earlier, we are already £1.1 billion over what we receive in block grant adjustments, and that has to come out of the overall Scottish Government budget.

Of course, we look to see what can be done, but, at the foundation of the matter, the UK Government must ensure that it lives up to its responsibilities.

I take those requests very seriously, and the organisations that are challenging the Government to uprate the Scottish child payment further are absolutely right to do so. The point that we have raised with them, and which I have made in the chamber on a number of occasions, is that we have had to make really difficult choices as the budget has gone through.

I will not rehearse again the figures that I have mentioned. However, I will add that going beyond the uprating of the Scottish child payment for inflation to increase the payment to £30 per week, for example, would cost an additional £57 million, which would have to be found in the budget and taken from elsewhere. Increasing the Scottish child payment to £40, which some campaigners have asked for, would require an additional £228 million to be found in the budget. As members are aware, there simply is not that spare budget sitting unallocated in the budgetary process.

I also remind the committee—Mr Mason was there on Wednesday when we had this discussion—that members from across the chamber rightly challenged the Government to say that it is not just through social security that we should assist people. We need to look at employability, wages and other ways to support people. That is exactly why we look at the three drivers of poverty in “Best Start, Bright Futures: Tackling Child Poverty Delivery Plan 2022-2026” and why it is not just about social security.

In summary, yes, we look at that. We have taken our decisions on the basis of the budget that is available to us, but we also look at the other ways that we can support people, in addition to the uprating of the Scottish child payment.

The irony was not lost on me, as I am sure it was not lost on others, that, when the Scottish Government increased the Scottish child payment to £20—obviously, it is higher now—the UK Government took away the £20 uplift to universal credit, so what the Scottish Government gave with one hand, the UK Government took away with another. The member is right to point to the real challenges that we have in trying to protect people with a top-up when universal credit is at the level that it is at. That is exactly why we have continued to call for an essentials guarantee, which would—the clue is in the name—ensure that people can afford the essentials in life. Unfortunately, to date, that has been rebuffed by the UK Government.