Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is one of the hardest questions for us, collectively, to answer. I have considered the matter in two capacities; I did so first when I was Minister for Europe, Migration and International Development, when I considered how we could raise awareness of the UK Government’s European Union settlement scheme among the hardest to reach, who might not necessarily access services in the normal manner.

Of course, there is the media work that Social Security Scotland does, which includes work with the mainstream media, such as newspapers and local radio, as well as work with social media, through all the different mechanisms that you would expect. Kirsten Sweeney will be able to say more about that.

The investment in the welfare advice and health partnerships is significant. The vast majority of people will access GP services and the national health service at some point. The provision of that service, whereby 150 surgeries are due to deliver welfare advice services in-house, is significant. We have provided new funding for that service, which is an important aspect of our outreach work.

Kirsten, would you like to say a bit more about Social Security Scotland’s activity in the mainstream media?

Certainly, convener. We will pass the letter on to the committee.

Universal credit is of course a reserved benefit, so we are not able to affect the process of universal credit at all. Mr Choudhury—and, indeed, the committee, if it was inclined—would have to take that up with the UK Government.

Incidentally, when I was on your predecessor committee, I raised the issue of the five-week wait with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and pressed it as a point of concern. It is very disappointing that, at this juncture, people are still facing that issue and that politicians are still having to query it. It is not helpful in any way for those accessing the system.

On automation generally, there are important considerations around it in our system. In the longer term, there is an intention to automate benefits such as Scottish child payment where it is both appropriate and feasible. However, there is important context to that, which I will set out. First of all, analysis is under way within the Scottish Government regarding the feasibility of using Scottish child payment and its eligibility criteria for automating education benefits such as free school meals, which relates to what Emma Roddick asked about earlier.

The current position is that the eligibility criteria differ, and we are exploring options for achieving full automation. That work is progressing, but, for the sake of context, I suggest that the committee considers the fact that automation is not universally welcomed and does not solve all the take-up issues. We know that to be the case, because stakeholders who responded to the benefit take-up inquiry conducted by your predecessor committee highlighted that very complexity. For example, in its written submission, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation stated:

“Human advisors with robust knowledge of the system can assess the nuances of individual cases to identify eligibility in a way automation likely never could.”

Moreover, in its written evidence, the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations said:

“algorithms do not lend themselves to nuanced decisions based on dignity, fairness and respect.”

As we continue to evolve and improve digital capacity in Social Security Scotland, the Scottish Government and the Scottish public sector more widely, including local government—and it is quite significant that the Scottish Government’s digital strategy is a joint one with local government—we will continue to consider how automation can be of assistance. However, as we design the social security service, we need to keep in mind that having advisers and providing accessibility through having someone to speak to, which I talked about earlier, will be a really important part of the process of application and resolving issues. The question is how we strike a balance in that respect.

Finally, on the point about universal credit, I encourage Mr Choudhury to take the issue up with UK ministers.

I am sorry, but can you elaborate? I am not familiar with the example that you highlighted.

I thank Mr Briggs for his questions on that important issue. Throughout the Social Security (Scotland) Bill process in 2017-18, I was particularly interested in that area, and I engaged with the sector.

You asked about the reasons for the relatively low take-up of the funeral support payment and how we are seeking to address it. We know that not everyone who is eligible for the payment will apply, and a point to note is that many people plan ahead and make provision to cover the cost of their funeral. The relatively low take-up figure for the payment can be explained to an extent by the fact that our methodology for estimating take-up is at an early stage and there is a degree of uncertainty attached to the estimate. I can bring in Vana Anastasiadou to comment on that if you have any follow-up questions.

Taking all that into account, however, it is important to emphasise that the funeral support payment is working well. It has supported over 9,500 bereaved families since it was launched in September 2019, and it has provided more than £17 million of support to those who need it most. We have made it easier to apply, and as a result the number of successful applications has increased. We have approved 78 per cent of applications, which can be compared with the UK Government’s authorisation of 68 per cent of applications in 2019-20. The picture is successful.

You asked about engagement with the sector. One of my early meetings as minister was with the sector. We are well connected with the organisations that represent it and we have an open dialogue with respect to its concerns and how we can, together, promote the benefit and take-up. That was one of the points that we discussed when I met those organisations, and we are collectively engaged in addressing how we can improve take-up.

There are currently no targets in the UK system. I state that not as a political point, but as a matter of context.

Setting targets to improve take-up would require us to have established a baseline, which again relates to the question of data and where we started from. We published our initial estimates of take-up of the benefits that are currently administered by Social Security in the second take-up strategy, which means that the estimates may change as we improve our methodology and the underlying data. As a result, the baseline that we could use to inform the setting of targets is still in development. That is one of the key points. Any target that was set now would be entirely arbitrary, whereas we want to set targets that are based on proper, robust baseline data.

However, even with a well-established baseline in future, setting different targets for different benefits would likely lead to a potentially unfair system in which some benefits would be deemed as meriting higher take-up than others. We would need to be careful and cognisant of that.

The purpose of our take-up strategy is to ensure that clients are aware of their eligibility, to promote take-up and to encourage and properly support people in accessing Scottish social security assistance. The strategy takes a very proactive approach to supporting, encouraging and informing people as much as possible. Because of where we are in the journey of the establishment of Social Security Scotland and the development of benefits here in Scotland, setting targets would not be appropriate at this juncture for the reasons that I have set out. However, we will continue to look at the matter as we progress with future strategies.

We had a good discussion on that issue during the debate last week, and Emma Roddick made some important points in her speech. We have a collective responsibility as a Parliament and, more widely, as a society to deal with that issue, which has been wrongly encouraged through some avenues, and through other avenues has been appeased. However, rather than looking back, let us look forward collectively at how we commit as a Parliament, as I urged in the debate last week, to reduce and in time remove any sense of stigma around claiming social security.

We have a social security system for a reason, which is to help and support people when we as a society agree that support should be there, and that takes a number of forms. I want to make that general, more conceptual point, because we have an important responsibility and opportunity in Scotland to change that stigma, but it will take time. The passing of the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 was part of that, but there is more work to do. It involves a change of social attitudes and a change of culture, and every politician can be a leader in that, as can others including the media.

There are obvious questions that we must consider as a Government. How do we proactively make those changes? We do that through our media output and our contributions in the chamber, and also through the general work of Social Security Scotland. We have worked hard to ensure that the process of applying for benefits is as accessible and supportive as possible, starting from the position that access to social security is a fundamental human right and is a shared, collective investment that we are making together as a society.

I take this opportunity to encourage people to take the time to check what they may be entitled to and to apply for the money that they are due. That is the fundamental message. We are doing what we can to encourage clients who have accessed a payment and who know someone else who may be eligible to pass the information on. If they have had a good experience, we encourage them and we are trying to support them to tell others about it, as that may make the difference, in that another person may apply, rather than not.

Parliamentary colleagues and others can share information on benefits, whether that involves putting up a poster in an office, encouraging local community centres or other entities to display information, or sharing posts on social media—as I know colleagues do regularly, which is extremely helpful. Kirsten Sweeney talked about the success of the Facebook initiatives that Social Security Scotland has undertaken and the wider social media work that it undertakes. We could all share that as widely as possible.

This is a collective responsibility. I appeal to everyone who comments on these issues—politicians, the media and other stakeholders and individuals—to speak positively about social security so that we can collectively move fully to a culture where stigma around claiming benefits is reduced and then eradicated as we create a society where we believe in people being able to access and get support when they need it. We must make that investment collectively with passion, positivity and commitment as a whole populace.

Thank you for inviting me to give evidence on our latest benefit take-up strategy, which was published and laid before Parliament on 21 October.

The new strategy builds on the 2019 strategy and sets out the Scottish Government’s approach to encouraging and supporting the take-up of Scottish benefits, as well as providing our best estimates of the take-up rates for the benefits that Social Security Scotland is delivering.

Publication of the strategy is a duty that is placed on the Scottish ministers by the 2018 act, but it is much more than that. Ensuring that all forms of assistance are available and accessible to those who need them and that everyone is able to take up their entitlements, regardless of personal circumstances, is a fundamental priority for the Scottish Government and something that we are very enthusiastic about.

Reserved benefits also play an important role in maximising people’s incomes in Scotland. It is disappointing that the Department for Work and Pensions still does not have any corresponding strategy for ensuring that those benefits are taken up. I genuinely hope that that changes.

A recognition that benefit take-up is part of a bigger picture is at the heart of the refreshed strategy. It is one pillar of a holistic Scottish Government approach to maximising incomes, which underpins commitments related to tackling poverty and recovering from the economic impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic.

The new strategy is built around five key principles that have been developed through extensive stakeholder engagement and experience panel research. In delivering the initiatives and interventions that are set out in the strategy, we will prioritise person-centred approaches; communicate and engage effectively; bring services to people; encourage cross-system collaboration; and continuously learn and improve. Each of those five principles, taken alone, is important, but bringing them together in the new strategy means that they will work in combination and yield far greater impact.

The benefit take-up strategy takes a whole-system approach and provides a framework within which we will continue to encourage and support people in Scotland to access the assistance that they are due.

I am happy to take any questions that the committee may have.

I thank Mr Choudhury for that question. However, that is not an area of responsibility for me, as social security minister; it is a question for the Minister for Public Health, Women’s Health and Sport. Perhaps the convener and committee could note that and engage with the minister. I think that that would be more appropriate; I would not want to answer on behalf of another minister.

On the point about an individual having only one interaction with a service, with a proactive process, either digitally or otherwise, that then enables them to engage with other support, that already happens to a large extent, but there is improvement to be undertaken. I am talking about the public service as a whole, where refinement and efficacy could be improved to a greater extent. The Government as a whole is focused on that question and I am sure that we will come back to it collectively, as a Parliament, in the period ahead. Again, the Covid recovery strategy touches on some of those issues.

Another way of thinking about it is that there should be no wrong door—that is a phrase that I have used previously. If somebody goes to a GP practice and asks about social security, they should be able to get some assistance. That is exactly why we are providing 150 advisers in GP practices: to build on that concept and capacity. It is about not only co-ordination between public services, but the development of our digital capacity in the public sector; those two things are interrelated.

How do we ensure that referrals are made with proper and appropriate consideration of data protection and all the other aspects that services rightly have to consider? How do we put in place the infrastructure as well as the co-ordination to provide people with the greatest level of support that is available to them, so that they do not have to go to different places, either physically, digitally or otherwise?

We are starting from a good position on that, but there is more work to do across Government and local government, and with stakeholders. That is a really important thematic area of attention in the period ahead, as we recover from the pandemic.

You asked about the situation with monitoring. I refer to my earlier comments, in which I touched on the most important themes. We will continue to engage through the stakeholder take-up reference group and other entities that are already in place to make sure that we are monitoring progress as much as we can, within the data constraints that we touched on earlier. Does that answer your point?