Seòmar agus comataidhean

Kyle Scott, when you or your colleagues give details to the committee about banking hubs, it would be helpful to have information on where they are springing up. What is the percentage of older people in those areas? What percentage are in cities versus remote and rural areas? Are they in areas of income deprivation? They could be set up in areas where there are lots of middle-class people and pensioners who are less likely to be income deprived. There might be a lot of demand from those people, so it is understandable why banking hubs might be set up in those areas, but hubs might not necessarily be doing all the things that we have been talking about for the most at-risk groups. If your colleagues could identify where the banking hubs are being set up, that would be really helpful. Would that be okay?

Marie McNair mentioned that the DWP had hoped to be here today. However, quite late in the day, it gave us some written evidence. We cannot quite test that evidence, but I would like to put some of it on the record briefly. If Kyle Scott or others could give a brief reflection on it, that would be helpful.

For pension credit, which we know is one of the most underclaimed entitlements in the country, there is a freephone—an 0800 number—claim line. So, there appears to be a public-facing claim line for that; it is not digital by default. For attendance allowance, which is still migrating over to Scotland, there is a freephone helpline. For universal credit and mixed-age couples, there is help to claim, which I think that Citizens Advice Scotland is involved in. However, that is for the initial claim; it is not for those who have made a claim after which there has been a change of circumstances and all of that.

I do not want to take this meeting off at a tangent, but we need to test some of that evidence. I am afraid that it might be for you to respond again, Kyle. What is your reflection on the DWP’s services—whether digital by default, customer facing, face to face or through contact at the end of a telephone—in relation to pension credit, attendance allowance and universal credit? We have written evidence here, but we cannot actually test it.

Kyle Scott, can I briefly check something with you? That does not appear to be digital by default. As I understand it, there is a partnership with Citizens Advice Scotland to help clients to navigate digital by default, but it remains digital by default. Is that a fair reflection?

Time is almost up, so I will make this a rhetorical question for now, but, if you could write back, that would be great. This question might be for you in particular, Jillian Matthew, given your role.

Everything that we have heard today suggests that there is no universal accessibility and engagement standard that is reported on or audited in the UK public sector, the Scottish public sector, local authorities or the private sector. Today, we have looked at the issue through the prism of pensioner poverty and digital exclusion, but the issue is wider than that. I am sorry that I cannot hear them from you just now, but any information or thoughts that you have on that would be really welcome, as the committee grapples with the issue. That was a wee sneaky final question, even though it is a rhetorical one for now.

I thank all four of you for your invaluable evidence.

The committee will move into private session for agenda item 3, which is consideration of today’s evidence.

The cabinet secretary has answered much of what I was going to ask, but I will nudge her a little bit more in relation to potential future reforms of carers payments.

I was encouraged to hear, cabinet secretary, that you are thinking about making changes in relation to multiple carer roles and the carers allowance supplement. You also mentioned bereavement and the rolling on of benefits and support, which is really good.

I turn to my substantive question. Given that the carers support payment has been live since November 2023, how has the Scottish Government worked with those who receive the new benefit to tease out what future changes might look like? It would be helpful if you could say a little more about how you have done that.

As well as asking that question, I want to nudge a little bit more. I understand that eligibility is a binary choice and that people are either below the threshold or the payment is cut off completely if they are above it. Given the issue’s complexity, tapering might be a real challenge, including financially. How has the lived experience of those who have received the payment since November 2023 featured in your considerations, and has the Scottish Government undertaken further work in that area?

I have no further questions. Having looked at the issue this morning, I welcome anything that the Scottish Government can do to improve the experience of those who face net earnings fluctuation and uncertainty. It is good to hear that such work is on-going.

I have a brief question, cabinet secretary. Mr Balfour mentioned the Scottish Fiscal Commission, which gave evidence to the committee not long ago. I asked it what forecasting work it might do on suggested changes at UK level in relation to reserved benefits or, indeed, to benefits with a devolved aspect that would have Barnett consequentials if changes were made at UK level. The SFC said that it is very much tasked with forecasting with regard to the policy decisions of the Scottish Government.

However, you said earlier that the SFC also looks at what is happening across the UK and the potential impact on Scotland, although it looks only at what has been decided at a UK level, not at what has been mooted by the UK Government. Should the SFC’s role be expanded for the purposes of preparedness, if you like, so that, if the UK Government implements one of its mooted cuts to UK welfare benefits, whether reserved or devolved, the Scottish Government will have at its disposal relatively quickly facts, figures and statistics on what the impact on Scotland might be? That would help it to decide what actions and policy decisions it might take.

That is helpful. Thank you.

I will be ever so brief. In speaking in support of the affirmative instrument, I must commend Kevin Stewart and Douglas Lumsden for pushing for Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire to be part of the flat fares pilot. Their cases are almost as compelling as that for the north Glasgow and Maryhill Road corridor, where, with the fare capping that will be essential for my constituents, we could have excellent integration between buses and the rail network in that area, and we could work out the relationship between both. Notwithstanding that, though, I completely support the affirmative instrument that we are debating.

SEPA is sometimes criticised. so I am trying to pay you a compliment by saying that there is clearly partnership working going on here. However, the nudge that I am looking for is for you to say whether you think that there could be more on the statute book to assist SEPA and other public agencies—I am not talking about the Promat site; I am talking more generally—to tackle the issue. The committee would be interested to hear about that. If there is nothing, that is okay and I will not ask any more questions. Is there anything specific that you would like to draw to our attention?