Seòmar agus comataidhean

I can emphasise that, from a Scottish Government position, we are making it very clear to the DWP when we require to receive the data and how we require to receive it to meet that deadline. I do not want to say anything more at this stage, as officials are engaged in good faith on the matter. However, I will certainly update the committee in due course as appropriate.

I thank Miles Briggs for that important question. A situation where two parents are in receipt of a qualifying benefit for the same child should not be possible. If a situation arises where both parents have an exact 50:50 split of care and both are in receipt of a qualifying benefit, we would trust that the process of applying for the qualifying benefit would provide clarity by awarding the child element to the parent responsible for the child. Where that fails for any reason and triggers a competing claim for the Scottish child payment, the rules that allow the Scottish ministers to consider the circumstances of the child will apply. The evidence that will be considered by the Scottish ministers in determining awards in these cases will be set out in the published guidance. The guidance will be important in relation to those questions.

The Scottish Government continues to evaluate and consider how all our benefits are performing and what revisions we may need to make to regulations to make sure that they take into account the different situations of different families in different circumstances. The fact that we have brought the regulations to the committee today is evidence of that continued work to improve the benefits that we provide.

Pauline Torley might want to say a bit more about engagement or any other points that Mr Briggs has raised.

Yes, the guidance will be published to coincide with the amending regulations coming into force on 23 December. Organisations are being consulted. We intend to consult with the five family payments reference group, which includes the third sector, NHS and local government representation and the Child Poverty Action Group.

As I set out to Pam Duncan-Glancy, we continue to encourage parents with shared care to make the decision about who makes a claim. We shared the draft regulations with our stakeholder group and no feedback was received suggesting that people would be disincentivised.

Good morning. The regulations will make sure that the Scottish child payment and best start grant regulations align with our original policy intent of getting payments to the person who is responsible for the child.

The best start grant is aimed at giving children the best start in life by offering financial support to eligible families at key points in a child’s early years.

The Scottish child payment is the most ambitious child poverty reduction measure in the United Kingdom. It supports families on qualifying benefits who have children under six, and it will be extended to cover children under 16 by the end of 2022, if all goes to plan in getting the data that is required from the DWP. The Scottish child payment is already supporting 106,000 children through payments worth £40 every four weeks. As the First Minister announced earlier this week, those payments will increase to £80 in April next year.

The First-tier Tribunal for Scotland highlighted that, in a very small number of cases, the process for resolving competing cases under the Scottish child payment regulations did not award the person with responsibility for the child. A related issue arose with the best start grant where an award was made to someone who received the child element of universal credit, but someone else was caring for the child. Without the amendments in the regulations before the committee today, we would not always be able to pay the person who is responsible for the child.

Ordinarily, one person would receive the child responsibility benefit and the use of top-up powers would work to meet the policy intent, but it has recently become clear that that does not always happen in practice, so we are seeking to rectify the situation. Although the number of people who are affected is likely to be very low, we are seeking to make the changes in the regulations before us because it is the right thing to do.

Draft regulations were referred to the Scottish Commission on Social Security in September. Considering its workload, I was very grateful to receive its scrutiny report in October. We have accepted all the recommendations, and our response was laid in the Parliament on 12 November.

David Wallace, chief executive of Social Security Scotland, provided an update to SCOSS, in which he outlined how the agency responded to the problem of competing claims, in advance of the regulations being laid. He clarified how the agency would support the regulations through guidance. The agency will publish updated guidance to coincide with the regulations coming into force.

I remain extremely grateful to the Scottish Commission on Social Security for its scrutiny and recommendations, and I welcome the opportunity to assist the committee with its consideration of the regulations before us. I look forward to any questions that members may have.

I will take the second question first, which was about why a first-come, first-served approach was considered an acceptable backstop provision. It was not considered an acceptable backstop provision.

To give the wider context, the original Scottish child payment rules stated that a second applicant for a Scottish child payment who was not higher up the hierarchy of entitlement than a previous applicant would have their application rejected. In effect, that created a first-come, first-served rule for two applicants with the same qualifying criteria. However, it was not anticipated that two different people could both satisfy the top-tier qualifying criteria, which is why we needed to amend the regulations and why we have brought the amended regulations before the committee.

I should say that the reason why we did not anticipate that the situation could arise through the process of the original regulations is that it should not be possible for more than one individual to be in receipt of the qualifying benefit, with the associated child element, for the same child. Where universal credit is top of the hierarchy, only one person should get the child element and one person would get child benefit. We expected that, with any change in circumstances in which responsibility for the child moved, any associated benefits would move with the child, but it has now become clear that that is not always happening. That is in the DWP reserved system. Therefore, we have put forward the proposed amendments in response to considerations in the reserved system in relation to the reserved benefits that create the entitlement to the devolved benefits in question. That is the context.

On your other question, I have had a recent bilateral with Chloe Smith on the issue of the data for the second phase of the roll-out of the Scottish child payment. Officials from the Scottish Government and the DWP continue to be engaged in conversations around securing that data for the November 2022 timescale that we are working towards and to make sure that we progress in the fashion that is required to deliver in that timescale.

We will closely monitor the use of discretion in competing claims, as you would expect. There are currently processes and a number of meetings in place between agency and policy officials to discuss cases that are live at the moment. The existing provisions between the agency and policy officials will continue. The guidance will be published to coincide with the amending regulations coming into force on 23 December. We can consider that guidance thereafter if that is appropriate or helpful. The points around discretion need to be considered very carefully with regard to the development of that guidance and officials will be actively involved in engagement with the agency to make sure that that guidance is appropriate for the needs required.

Pauline Torley might want to say some more about that.

I thank Pam Duncan-Glancy for that important question. First of all, she will be aware that the cabinet secretary announced a significant new winter package of support, much of which is allocated to local authorities in order to help with funding at a local level.

Members will be aware that we committed in our pre-election manifesto to a review of the Scottish welfare fund in this parliamentary session. Work towards initiating that review is progressing significantly. I am happy to take that point away and come back to the committee with clarity as to where the process is with regard to initiating that review and the formalities that have to be considered in that process. I will do that along with further information for Mr Balfour on engagement in relation to funeral benefits and, although I have given Marie McNair significant information on the valuation of the pilot of CDP, anything more that I can add to that. I am also happy to update Pam Duncan-Glancy with a clear position on a review of the Scottish welfare fund.

We recently received an evaluation on the pilot, and I am happy to provide that to the committee ahead of the national launch on 22 November. Members should bear in mind that it was a pilot and part of the process of a pilot is to refine and to learn. One very positive outcome of the pilot was that 88 per cent of people who applied did so digitally. That shows that Social Security Scotland’s public-facing IT was accessible and its interfacing was a success, in that the people who participated in the pilot for CDP engaged with the IT successfully.

A number of factors arose that we have taken on board to consider ahead of the national launch. One is that some people who tried to apply for CDP were already on the UK benefit. They will be transferred in due course as part of the case transfer, and therefore they were unable to make an application. That shows that we need to do some awareness raising ahead of the national launch, and that has been factored in for consideration around 22 November.

Kirsten Sweeney might want to say more.