Chamber and committees

It is important that we undertake analysis of the drivers of ADP expenditure. I said in my opening remarks that work on that was recently published. Many of the drivers are reflected across the UK, not just in Scotland. I do not think that it is surprising that the increase in the state pension age was one of the main drivers that was identified.

The agency is doing work on ADP to ensure that we are keeping an eye on case load numbers and the number of awards as a percentage of applications, and so on. Work is also being undertaken by Professor Linda Bauld and others to analyse the drivers of ADP expenditure, which will assist us with the forecasting of case load as we go forward. Again, I hope that that work will inform a greater understanding of why there has been an increase in ADP, so that we can perhaps have a more civilised conversation than we have had in recent weeks about the level of benefits in Scotland.

We will be able to estimate some of the costs of the recommendations of the ADP review. My officials are currently looking at that because, inevitably, the costs are based on a lot of assumptions. I am keen to be as open as we can about some of those costs so that people have a better understanding of the scale of them when we are discussing them. I have asked officials to see whether there is more that we can do, so that when we respond to the Edel Harris review, we can put some of the information into the public domain. That is useful only if I can assure myself that, in putting out those figures, we can be clear about the assumptions that we have made and the fact that they are forecasts and assumptions and so on. We want to have a sensible conversation about the issue, so I need to look carefully at the estimates to see whether they are robust enough. However, it is important, if at all possible, that we can move ahead with that.

Clearly, when it comes to cost, some of the most expensive aspects of the Edel Harris recommendations come in the section that talks about changes to eligibility. That is one of the key drivers. When we are discussing changes to eligibility, it is sensible to have an eye on costs. Cost would not be the only factor, but the Government is, rightly, always challenged on whether our social security spend is sustainable and whether we have a commitment to what we have in place at the moment, and we would not want to make further commitments to anyone unless we were able to carry those through sustainably.

Those are the types of issues that I am wrestling with as we draw to a conclusion the Government’s response to the Edel Harris review, to see how much detail we can give.

I have made it clear—and I have said this to Edel Harris—that, because I have asked officials to look at the review of reviews as well as the Edel Harris recommendations, we will continue into around mid-February. I have made her aware of that slight delay. That is to ensure that we have a response from Government that deals not only with her report but with other matters. We anticipate that happening within the next couple of weeks.

It plays an exceptionally important part in our work not only to tackle child poverty but to assist people, and it is exactly why the First Minister has placed such importance on the whole family support package and the role of the third sector in that. He and I—and, indeed, other cabinet secretaries and ministers—have visited a number of examples of the third sector delivering in our communities what is, in effect, whole family support. If that type of support can be provided to a family before they reach the point of crisis, rather than at the point of crisis, it will be far better for them, and far better when it comes to the effective use of public services.

I hope that all of us will conclude that the best thing that we can do is help people as early as possible, whenever they need it. Whole family support is an integral part of that, and the third sector is an integral part of delivering that support.

Campaigners are absolutely correct to continue to push the Government to go further in that area. We are conscious of the 2030 targets and are determined to meet them. The work that we are doing as we draft the tackling child poverty delivery plan that will be published in March is based on that credible path.

I go back to the point that income from social security is an exceptionally important policy driver within the delivery plan, but it is not the only such driver. It is important to look at whole family support, employability and transport, and at the areas in which people are telling us about the difficulties that they are having or the barriers that they face in getting into employment or being able to access support services in the public sector.

There will be further detail in the tackling child poverty delivery plan regarding whole family support and how we use the tackling child poverty fund to deliver further on that.

I welcome the opportunity to assist the committee with its consideration of the draft regulations, which will provide a long-term solution to ensure that individuals who are fleeing crises overseas can access Scottish social security benefits quickly when they arrive.

Until now, we have had to introduce emergency regulations each time a crisis has occurred. In recent years, we have brought forward emergency changes following the evacuation from Afghanistan in 2021; the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022; the escalation of violence in Sudan in 2023; the escalation of violence in Israel, the occupied Palestinian territories, the Golan Heights and Lebanon in 2023; and, most recently—in September last year—the escalation of violence between Israel and Iran.

The Scottish Commission on Social Security has welcomed our intention to introduce general crises regulations to reduce reliance on emergency legislation. We have aligned our approach with similar changes that the UK Government has introduced for benefits that it administers. That will ensure that there is parity across the UK for people who arrive here after a crisis abroad.

The regulations will remove the habitual residence and past presence requirements for benefits to which those tests apply. That will apply to British nationals and third-country nationals who already hold leave to remain in the UK, do not require such leave or have been granted humanitarian leave. As immigration law remains reserved to the UK Government, the Scottish Government cannot create new immigration routes or protection schemes.

The regulations will apply where the UK Government has provided public information to advise British nationals to leave a country or territory or has arranged the evacuation of British nationals from that country or territory, or where a person has been granted leave for humanitarian reasons. They will provide a clear exemption for people who arrive via schemes such as the Ukraine scheme or the scheme for the recent medical evacuation of children from Gaza.

The regulations will also extend the temporary absence provisions for people who are stranded abroad due to a crisis, which will enable payments to continue for up to 26 weeks.

In addition, amendments to the best start grant will allow families who are escaping crises to receive the higher-rate pregnancy and baby payment for second or subsequent children, even if their first child was born before they arrived in the UK. That reflects the reality that many families may have been forced to leave belongings and essential items behind.

The past presence and habitual residence tests appear across both UK-wide and Scottish social security legislation. Applying them would mean that people who arrived unexpectedly as a result of a crisis would be unable to receive support until they had spent sufficient time in the UK or the common travel area, which they could not reasonably prepare for in advance. The regulations will therefore disapply those tests for individuals in the specified groups and will ensure that, where they meet all other eligibility criteria, they can access the support that they need from day 1.

Overall, the changes will strengthen our ability to respond swiftly and compassionately to international crises, to protect vulnerable people and to avoid the need for repeated emergency legislation. I am grateful to the Scottish Commission on Social Security for its scrutiny and recommendations, which were accepted. Subject to parliamentary approval, the changes will commence on 18 March 2026.

On the first point, we are in the foothills of how we can and should use data sharing in the future. A lot of work is going on in that area, not just in relation to child poverty. I have been doing important work with my officials and the agency to see how we can make the lives of disabled people and carers easier. We can work with clients in the social security system to take away barriers. Many of those barriers do not relate only to Social Security Scotland; we require local authorities to work with us. In the main, they are eager to do so, because they see the real benefits for them.

I am sorry if what I said sounded like a cynical politician’s answer—I usually try not to give them, particularly to you, Mr Balfour—so let me try again. It is important that we consider the impact on people. We should look at whether we have made things easier by taking away a barrier. Does someone need to apply for another benefit, or have we taken away that barrier?

That ties into how we evaluate the system. For example, how can we build in our evaluation on tackling child poverty? Perhaps Julie Humphreys can assist me in that regard.

Social security works closely with relevant stakeholder organisations to ensure that we provide information in a way and in places that will help individuals. It is important that we provide information in different languages and a wide range of formats. It is a key measurement of the social security charter that interpreter and translation services are available in person, in writing and over the phone to ensure that language is not a barrier.

That is why it is deeply disappointing that the Scottish Conservatives chose to say that they would make a saving by taking away translation and interpretation services from people who are at a crisis point in their lives and are seeking help at the most difficult and tragic of times. The fact that the Scottish Conservatives would pick that as a way of making savings points to the barbarity of the proposals that they made last week.

There is no denying that the Scottish Government’s budget choices are impacted by our exposure to UK Government decisions. In my area, that is particularly relevant to benefit expenditure. There is continued uncertainty in many areas of UK benefit expenditure. There is the on-going Timms review of universal credit, which, although fully reserved, has an impact on people in Scotland.

There is a real challenge in terms of the impact on both the budget and our people. In the Scottish Government, we need to deal with that by attempting to work with the UK Government and by asking it to give us as much notice as possible of changes, to allow us to make planning assumptions as best we can. That is challenging, and we have seen examples—I am sure that I do not need to rehearse them to the committee—of where that has not happened.

We must also look at aspects that are within our gift, including the fiscal sustainability delivery plan and the medium-term financial strategy, to ensure that we are challenging ourselves on the funding. We must look at the Scottish Government budget in the round to ensure that we are always content that we have a balanced budget. That is exactly what we are providing to the committee today.

We have robust in-year financial mechanisms and management practices. It is a challenge, though, when we have a system in which the vast majority of benefits are still reserved to Westminster. It would be fair to say that the Scottish Government’s view of social security being a human right does not appear to be shared by the previous or current UK Governments.

I welcome my on-going discussions with Stephen Timms; indeed, I spoke to him just yesterday about the work that the review is undertaking. It would be fair to say that he, as a minister, has endeavoured to keep this Parliament as up to date as possible. However, the challenge, when the review is reaching its completion and decisions are starting to be made, is how much prioritisation and importance will be given to the impact on Scotland.

I welcome the fact that Stephen Timms is accessible to me for discussions. However, if I put his personal work to one side, I am concerned overall that we have not had good working relationships with the UK Government on other benefits and other changes that have had a significant impact on Scottish Government budgets.