Chamber and committees

In essence, the resource for that is already planned within the budget. I can give some examples to try to bring this to life a bit. For example, a specialist resource is being secured through the head of organisational capability and transition that will support a newly established project team that reports to the social security and programme leadership teams. The programme and the agency leadership teams are working jointly on that. I also mentioned the establishment of the delivery and change function, which is led by the director for delivery and change and social security, and that will drive the transition.

The committee can see that there are lines within the budget as it has been outlined, and expenditure within those lines, to ensure that the change programme is happening and that there is a smooth transition.

Mr Balfour will be well aware that we have been blessed by the fact that we have had quite a stable group of leaders in the programme and the agency throughout the devolution of social security. That is exceptionally helpful, because we have the key skills and we have people who have known one another and worked together for many years. We are determined not to lose that skill set as we transition from programme to agency.

There has been a great deal of discussion with the third sector since the UK Government’s announcement on ENICs. Very soon after the announcement, I had a meeting with the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations to discuss its views on the implications for the third sector, and its public pronouncements speak for themselves. Unless I am mistaken, SCVO, along with a number of other third sector organisations, was named as supporting the letter from the First Minister and the president of COSLA to the UK Government. We are keeping very close to SCVO and other third sector bodies to talk about the impact of the increased contributions, and we will continue those discussions with them. We will continue to do our best to represent their concerns directly to the UK Government, as they are also doing directly.

As I said, we tried to get out as many early notifications as possible before Christmas. This is the first week back after Christmas, and we did not have capacity to gather all the information before I came to the committee today, but we will provide it in writing. I appreciate that we are on a journey with regard to the length of grants, but the pilot has been welcomed by the third sector as a definitive move that we have made. We have moved from something that we were trying to do to something that we are delivering with the pilot. I will provide the details of that across portfolios to the committee.

The Government frequently produces and publishes information giving a breakdown of social security payments and the reasons behind them.

The convener rightly points to something that I see when I go out on visits. I am mindful of a visit to the Royal National Institute of Blind People last year, when I spoke with an adult but about the same type of process. That individual’s condition had deteriorated, but he had not raised that with the DWP because he was so fearful, given his experience of applying for benefits in the first place, that what he got might be taken away rather than being increased. However, he did share that change in his circumstances with Social Security Scotland and is now receiving support that he has probably been entitled to for quite some time.

That is not the only conversation I have had that shows that discussions in the community encourage other people to come forward. We will see more people coming forward because of others’ positive personal experiences, which takes us back to the idea of encouraging people to come forward to get what they are entitled to. I am pleased that that is an issue. Yes, it presents budgetary challenges, but we cannot try to cut the social security budget by increasing stigma or barriers. We need a social security system that works for people, and you have given some examples of that, although we must take account of the financial implications.

We did not ask to mitigate the two-child cap in the past. The Scottish child payment was established in phases because of the important work that had to be done with the DWP to allow data-sharing arrangements and to ensure that the framework existed to allow that to happen.

The progress of the Scottish child payment from policy inception to delivery was the quickest of any benefit that has ever been delivered within the UK. I am exceptionally proud of that record, but that was the beginning of a delivery that had to happen in phases to get the payment for children up to the age of 16, because of the work that had to be done with the DWP. There were important aspects to the timing of how the Scottish child payment was delivered. The fact that it had been introduced did not mean that the work stopped—work on the various phases had to continue.

Yesterday’s discussions with stakeholders were exactly about how we use the budget to move forward with the councils that are in greatest need. In relation to greatest need, we talked about the families behind the regulator’s discussions about systemic failure. As Mr Griffin and the rest of the committee well know, when we talk about systemic failure, we are talking about families and children in unsuitable temporary accommodation. I am particularly mindful that, when we talk about figures and the use of the budget, we always need to have in mind how we can alleviate issues for those in greatest need. That is exactly what yesterday’s discussion was about.

What I am saying is that, right across the UK, we are seeing an increase in the number of people who are coming forward for disability payments and that, on top of that, in Scotland, we are also seeing people coming forward because of the ease of the system. There are two different aspects to it.

There may be more people throughout the UK who are applying for disability benefits in general. We will then also see an additional increase on top of that, because of the lack of barriers to entry to our system.

We have not asked for information about the two-child cap, but I return to the fact that the difference is that we now have the Scottish payment, which makes that much easier. The key difference from the conversations that we had about the issue many years ago is that the Scottish child payment is now in existence, which means that the process, which is still complex—certainly, it is much more complex than was suggested in comments that were made yesterday—will be eased.

Do you mean the cost of the agency agreements?

We estimate that it will require an extra £5 million to meet the cost of national insurance contributions within Social Security Scotland. The committee will be aware that there is a staffing level of around 4,500 full-time equivalents, which is a significant workforce. The net impact of that increase will have to be met.

The overall net impact of the increase in employer national insurance contributions for the Scottish budget remains unknown. We are still waiting for clarity from the UK Government on what additional funding it plans to provide. I am sure that the committee can appreciate that such a level of uncertainty about something that has a significant impact, not just on the agency but across the public sector, is of great concern.

It is estimated that the change could add more than £500 million in costs for directly employed public sector staff. However, if we include the staff who deliver public services more widely, such as general practitioners and dentists, it will increase to more than £700 million.

The committee will, I am sure, be aware of the letter that the First Minister and the president of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 3 January, which was widely supported by many organisations in the public sector and the voluntary and third sectors, raising concerns about the ENICs decision and seeking clarity on that funding. That clarity is key as we look to finalise budgets. I am sure that the committee would wish the Government to get on with spending our budget from 1 April, but the lack of clarity does not help.