Social Security Committee

Meeting date: Thursday, June 20, 2019

Official Report 610KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

Welfare Foods (Best Start Foods) (Scotland) Regulations 2019 (SSI 2019/193)

Agenda item 3 is subordinate legislation. I refer members to paper 3, which is a note by the clerk. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee considered the regulations, which are subject to the negative procedure, at its meeting on 18 June and has drawn them to the attention of the Parliament on the grounds that the meaning of regulation 18 could be clearer. The Scottish Government has undertaken to bring forward an instrument shortly to rectify the issue, which has been welcomed by the DPLR Committee. The Scottish Government is attending to the matter that our sister committee has raised but, before I ask whether we are content just to note the instrument, do members wish to make any comments?

There are a lot of good things in the instrument. In particular, there is the increase in funding from £3.10 a week to £4.25 a week. We should warmly welcome the fact that there will be no recovery of unintentional overpayments and the transitional protection, with the age of eligibility reducing from four to three. However, that brings me on to some of my concerns. I would like to hear more from the Government about why the age of eligibility should reduce from four to three. As the Government is able to fund that transitional protection, that raises the question as to why the funding could not be provided on an on-going basis to maintain eligibility for four-year-olds.

On a process question, the legislative route for the instrument is through the Social Security Act 1988 rather than the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018, which means that it is not covered by some of the things that the committee worked hard to put in place. In particular, I am thinking about the Scottish Government’s strategy to ensure maximum uptake.

Another issue that the committee has worked hard on is automation. I would like clarification from the Government as to why people who will move on to the new system will be invited to apply rather than automatically transferring. That issue is close to the heart of a lot of members.

Thank you for the opportunity to put some of those queries on the record, convener.

Thank you for putting that on the record. It is absolutely valid that you do so, but I should put it on the record that the Scottish statutory instrument was circulated to members two weeks ago, and we were asked to raise any detailed issues with it in advance to perhaps allow us to do something more meaningful on those points. Obviously, no one got back in relation to that.

Rather than skirt round some of the points that have been made, I point out that, in relation to take-up and automation, we are already in correspondence with the Government on potential lines of work for the committee, so I hope that we will be dealing with those issues in due course. Mr Griffin also raised a point about the criteria for qualifying for the money. The committee will of course carry out budget scrutiny, which might be an opportunity to return to that.

I am just trying to be helpful and to point out where the committee could move forward on some of the issues that Mark Griffin raises. However, he has put them on the record, which is absolutely his right and the right thing to do, because he feels strongly about it.

I am happy for us to write to the Government to ask about the issues that Mark Griffin has raised, but I am not in favour of delaying going ahead with the measure. I am happy for us to note the issues.

Paragraph 6 in paper 3 says that the reason why we have to consider the regulations now is that the commencement date is 12 August, so it was not possible to lay the instrument 40 days before that. That is not a reason. The Government should work back from the commencement date and lay the instrument 40 days in advance. There might be a reason, and my view is that we should ask what the reason is. However, that issue is not sufficient for us to prevent the regulations from going forward, and nor are the questions that Mark Griffin has raised. It is important that the regulations proceed.

I will make a couple of suggestions in a second, but a number of members want to comment now.

I, too, am content for the regulations to go ahead, but I would like to raise the issues that the Child Poverty Action Group has raised with regards to the stigma of prepayment cards and the need to provide cash payments wherever possible because many smaller shops, particularly in poorer communities in rural areas, do not accept such cards.

As a matter of course when we are dealing with such issues, it would be helpful if the Scottish Government could advise what its position is on uprating in line with rises in the cost of food. I would also like to know what alternative provision there is for those who, for whatever reason, such as allergies, are unable to have cow’s milk, formula or eggs. Those issues should be covered as a matter of course.

I agree with Alison Johnstone and Keith Brown. We should not delay the regulations, but we should write to the Government to ask for clarification on the issues that Mark Griffin has raised.

On Keith Brown’s point, I agree that we probably want to put down a marker now that we do not want things to come to us at the last minute so that we are having to chase our tails. We should say to the Government that we need to see instruments as early as possible. I take the convener’s point that the regulations were circulated two weeks ago and we were asked to look at them then, but this is the first time that we have had a public session on the regulations to allow us to raise the issues.

With the regulations that will follow in the autumn and next year, we need time to reflect on them and call in the appropriate witnesses, if required. We should put that in a letter to the Government along with Mark Griffin’s questions. However, I am content not to delay the regulations, because there are more positives than negatives.

That is helpful. I will make a suggestion on what you have said after everyone has commented.

I will probably echo a lot of what has been said already. Because it is a negative instrument, when it was sent to us two weeks ago, I did not see our objecting to it as such, but that does not mean that there are no concerns about timing and some of the points in it. I wanted to understand or have clarification of those issues. I also wanted to hear what other members thought, so that we could have a consolidated list of questions.

One concern that has not been mentioned relates to the removal of four-year-olds, which is being done on the assumption that they will all be in early years care and will get their lunch there. From talking to people, my sense is that not all of them will be, for various reasons, and I am concerned that some will lose out as a result. I would like clarification from the Government on the evidence base that it used to make the assumption that the removal of four-year-olds will not have any detriment to vulnerable families.

11:15  

As there are no more comments, it might be helpful to say why I mentioned the fact that members were made aware of the regulations two weeks ago. My point was not that we should not put the detail on the record this morning. There was no requirement for members to raise issues earlier but, if they had done so, that might have afforded the clerks the opportunity to take a structured approach and to be ready to support our discussion this morning. That would have been the only reason for that.

I have captured three central points from what I have heard. I want to ensure that I have got this right. We have heard clearly about future uprating; we have heard about the qualifying criteria and how they were arrived at, particularly in relation to the issue of four-year-olds; and we have heard issues more generally about uptake.

That said, I think that everyone has, explicitly or implicitly, given our previous evidence session, welcomed the regulations. However, that does not mean that we should not still scrutinise the details. If members are content, I am keen for us to write to the minister in relation to uprating, qualifying criteria, particularly in relation to four-year-olds, and uptake more generally. We will also indicate that we want to look at that more widely anyway. Are members content for me to write to the minister on those points?

On the 40-day period, I imagine that the DPLR Committee is dealing with that matter. I am trying not to duplicate things and to be focused on what we write about, but let us mention the 40 days as well.

I see that members have more comments. I am keen not to open up a wider debate, but I do not want to curtail the discussion either, so I will take those comments briefly. We still have to finalise what we are doing on the regulations, and we have one more agenda item.

I am content with what you propose, convener. To clarify, my point is not about the fact that the instrument is late. That might have been completely unavoidable, but my point is that no reason has been given. I am just looking to get the reason for that.

I will check what the DPLR Committee is doing in relation to that as well.

Could we also ask why the measures have been brought forward under the Social Security Act 1988 and not the act that the Parliament passed recently?

I am happy to do that.

The discussion has been helpful. We have to draft a letter that is reflective of the mood of the committee, so that helps. We welcome the fact that the Scottish Government is, we hope, making progress, but we still have to scrutinise the instrument robustly.

I will come to the question that I said that I was going to ask. Is the committee content, with the caveats that have been mentioned, simply to note the instrument?

Members indicated agreement.

As previously agreed, we will now move into private to consider agenda item 4, which is on universal credit consent provisions.

11:18 Meeting continued in private until 11:34.