Seòmar agus comataidhean

We have thought carefully about the matter. It is important to emphasise that we still intend to pay eligible child winter heating assistance clients as quickly as possible and that we expect to pay the vast majority of the more than 19,000 eligible children and young people by the end of the year. I just want to make that clear.

This year, making payments safely to everyone will require additional time and care. If regulations are passed that extend eligibility to around 5,000 young people who are in receipt of PIP, client data will come from a brand new source, which will mean an increase in client volumes, and we need to consider the practicalities around that.

In the event that payments are not made by 31 December, we expect that fewer than 10 per cent will be impacted. However, as I said, our intention is that the vast majority will be paid before 31 December.

It is also important to emphasise that it makes sense to provide support when it is needed most. We have thought about that point carefully. As we know, the coldest months in Scotland tend to be January and February, and user research suggests that some clients would prefer to receive their winter heating benefits in those months. Removing the deadline might help us to meet the needs of clients by paying benefits at a time that suits them best. It will be a consideration for us next year, once we are able to evaluate this year’s process and reflect on the feedback that we have received.

It is important to appreciate that, with the launch of CDP and the start of case transfer for children from DLA to CDP, Social Security Scotland enters a crucial and complex phase in its work this winter. The flexibility that we will gain around making determinations on child winter heating assistance cases through the removal of the 31 December deadline will ensure that Social Security Scotland will be able to deliver all its benefits to a high standard and on time, to the ultimate benefit of all our clients.

We are determined to deliver to as many clients as possible by 31 December, and we are confident that the vast majority of people will get their payment before then. Removing the deadline will give us the flexibility to consider, next year and in the years after, whether payment in a different period during the winter would be more advantageous for more clients.

Our intention behind the child winter heating assistance has always been to mitigate the increased heating costs that the families of the most severely disabled children and young people incur as a result of having to sustain a higher temperature at home during winter due to the child’s or young person’s disability or long-term condition and having to heat their homes in the night due to night-time care needs.

When we launched the payment last year, we decided to base eligibility on entitlement to the highest rate of the care component of DLA. To receive that rate, an individual must need help or supervision throughout the day and night. At the time, we considered that to be an appropriate proxy for identifying individuals with the most severe needs who were likely to have increased heating costs.

Earlier this year, two individuals raised appeals in the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland after being determined ineligible for child winter heating assistance. Both had previously been entitled to the higher rate of the DLA care component. However, as a result of United Kingdom Government policy, on turning 16, they had to transfer to PIP. The appellants argued that it was unfair that they were not eligible for child winter heating assistance simply because of that required transfer.

Those appeals and stakeholder feedback prompted us to reconsider the regulations and the extent to which they meet the policy objective. That resulted in the draft amendment regulations that are before us, which extend eligibility for child winter heating assistance to individuals aged 16 to 18 who are on the enhanced rate of PIP daily living component.

The proposed regulations will allow child winter heating assistance to be paid to people who lost out last year. They will also remedy the situation going forward until the case transfer to CDP is completed. Moreover, they will ensure that we provide the payment to all the most severely disabled 16 to 18-year-olds in Scotland.

If the regulations are passed, this year’s payment will reach an additional 5,000 clients approximately, which will take the total number to more than 19,000. With energy prices rising substantially, that is an important step in our collective efforts to support some of society’s most vulnerable people.

I am grateful to Dr Sally Witcher and the Scottish Commission on Social Security for their assistance. I am also grateful to the individuals and stakeholders who have engaged constructively with us.

I welcome the opportunity to assist the committee in its consideration of the draft regulations and look forward to any questions that members have.

As I set out in my opening statement, our priority in this situation is to provide financial help to households with the most severely disabled children and young people, to mitigate increased costs that result from their potentially having to heat their homes to higher temperatures during winter and throughout the day and night. It is important to recognise that we are the only part of the UK to do that.

We consider that the highest rate of the care component of DLA and CDP and the enhanced rate of the daily living component of PIP are a reasonable proxy for identifying those with the highest care needs who might incur increased heating costs over winter. We therefore decided to extend entitlement to child winter heating assistance to all the young people who are entitled to the enhanced rate of the PIP daily living component only.

We appreciate that considerations are on-going around the general issue of energy costs and heating. The committee will note that, in its report on the draft amendment regulations, SCOSS recommended that,

“Following completion of the transition from DLA and PIP to CDP and ADP, the Scottish Government should review passporting arrangements to CWHA, to ensure consistency and equitable treatment of people with the same relevant needs, including specifically with regard to night-time care needs”,

and we accepted that recommendation. We also have a firm commitment to the formal evaluation and improvement of our social security payments that is based those findings. The evaluation results for child winter heating assistance will be available next year and we will, of course, consider the report’s findings carefully.

Thank you for those important questions.

First, I emphasise that we are in a most significant period in the devolution of social security, with the on-going pilot of CDP and its national roll-out from 22 November and as we go into the roll-out of adult disability payment next year.

On supporting SCOSS and making sure that it is able to undertake its role effectively and properly, we absolutely recognise that it does an invaluable job, as you and I have emphasised, and we are committed to providing both the time and the resources to allow it to do that properly. Ministers meet the chair and will meet the board soon and regularly engage with it. I emphasise that point. We acknowledge that SCOSS has been under pressure and we will always work with it as flexibly as we can to make sure that the demands on its workload are part of our considerations and that we are mindful of them. We work as flexibly as we can, for example in sharing drafts and providing additional information.

However, for both the Government and SCOSS, social security legislation is complex and is fast moving at this time. We aim to provide two months for the scrutiny of regulations but, as you have noted, that is not always possible.

It may be helpful if I remind the committee and emphasise that, in order to provide additional support, we are recruiting an additional two members of staff to support SCOSS, and that, when people are in post, the total secretariat resource will have more than doubled since the election; it will go up to five people. We are also recruiting an additional board member, as you may already be aware.

I turn to the points about the elements of the regulations that are before us that could not be scrutinised by SCOSS: the provisions on case transfer from disability living allowance to CDP. Those provisions were made under section 95 of the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 and there is no requirement under the act to refer provisions made under section 95 to SCOSS. Considering SCOSS’s incredibly busy programme of work on a variety of regulations, we did not wish to request the scrutiny of provisions that fall outwith its remit. That is why we did not refer those regulations. However, some provisions were shared for information and context to keep SCOSS sighted.

I hope that that reassures the member about the importance that we place on SCOSS’s work, the evaluation that it provides and the stakeholder engagement of which it is a part. We are determined to work collaboratively with SCOSS to ensure that it is suitably resourced in the future.

I am sorry, Mr Briggs, but what do you mean by “point 24”?

I hope that that gives you the reassurance that you are looking for, Mr Griffin.

What sort of clarity do you mean?

In the redrafted code, section 6 has been shortened to make it easier for users. I appreciate your point that there will often be discussion in the community or public discourse that the councillor will be aware of but they cannot engage directly with stakeholders, whether that is the applicant or, for example, a community campaign that is in opposition. As Mr Coffey will appreciate, planning issues can be sensitive, given the nature of the decision that is being made. It is clear both in the code and in a councillor’s engagement with the code that they must be able to make a quasi-judicial decision that has not been influenced.

I think that the drafting is clear. If the committee thinks that it needs further consideration, I can take that point away. However, I encourage the committee to agree to the code as drafted today. Again, Tony Romain might want to add to what I have said, given his engagement throughout the process.

Thank you for your patience, Mr Briggs. I think that the page numbers in our papers must be different.

I will bring in Tony Romain to talk about the background and engagement with stakeholders, but I think that this is about ensuring appropriate consideration of the institution’s integrity. I take your point, though, about the need for political debate and discussion about performance and everything else. A balance has to be struck here. There will be members of staff working for councillors who are not at an appropriate level for criticism in the public domain, and a lot of this is about taking their wellbeing into consideration.

I appreciate the nature of the question and the need to ensure that councillors can contribute in a way that helps the wider consideration of matters and uses their experience. However, I am sure that you will appreciate the need to balance that with the consideration of maintaining public trust by ensuring that there is no undue influence.

I will bring in Tony Romain again, because he led the engagement with stakeholders throughout the consultation process, including while my predecessor was in post. The revisions to the code are about ensuring that considerations around declarations of interest are clear not just for councillors, but for members of the public. Tony can give us some insight into the considerations during the process.