Chamber and committees

I knew that I was going into a slightly sensitive area there, convener, but that is important in that it shows how we are ensuring that the type of employability support that is specifically for disabled people is now available in all 32 local authorities. That takes to a national level the support that was available in some areas but not in others to do exactly the thing that you mentioned—to ensure that, if those who have a disability are able to find employment, they can do so and be supported in that. The Government was pleased to be able to announce that additional funding to ensure that that support is now available right across the country.

I would say that all Governments have a responsibility to ensure that, if benefits are available, there is a take-up strategy to allow people to get the benefits that they are eligible for. We have a benefit take-up strategy to ensure that those who are eligible are supported to get what they are entitled to. There is a cross-party understanding on that, I think, when it comes to pension credit, which is a reserved benefit. Everyone seems to be in agreement that pensioners should have a benefit take-up strategy and should be encouraged in that respect. We should have the same type of strategy for disabled people, carers and those on low incomes.

It is very important, and analysis has been done, to look at the Scottish child payment to see whether it is a disincentive to work. The evidence that has been gathered is that, at its current level, it is not a disincentive to people taking up employment, and that is a very important part of the work that we are doing.

I go back to the work that has been done outwith Government to demonstrate very clearly that universal credit does not cover the basic essentials of life. The Scottish child payment provides additional income to people to assist them with the essentials of life. It does not do everything by any means that those campaigners wish us to do. There are many calls for us to increase the level of the Scottish child payment to further deal with the inadequacy of universal credit, but it is important to have the context that people on UC and the Scottish child payment are still very much in poverty or just on the cusp of poverty, and we are assisting with that.

It is clearly an option to look at tapers for the Scottish child payment, if that is what Mr Hoy is suggesting. It is possible for that to be built in, but it would build additional complexity into the system. I go back to my earlier point about why we brought in the Scottish child payment in the manner that we did. We did that to ensure its quick delivery. Any changes that anybody wished to see to develop a taper would require changes to the programmes, processes and systems, so that could not be done overnight, even if the Government was persuaded that it should be done. I stress that it is not an aspect that we are looking at at this time, because we are still very much concerned about the inadequacy of UC and, therefore, the income that many people receive.

No. Many of the universal policies sit outwith my portfolio. Liz Smith and I have had these conversations in the chamber and in the Social Justice and Social Security Committee. There are reasons to have universalism and there are other policies that should be targeted, but the Government has no plans to take away benefits or entitlements from people. That is an important reassurance that we can give. Although we are talking about those who are in poverty, the cost of living crisis impacts many people who are not caught by poverty measures. It is therefore important that they know, as they look to the years ahead, that the Government is not going to take anything away from them, which would cause great concern for people who are still struggling.

It does increase by inflation every year. We voted on that, as a Parliament, in the bill that went through—

The fact that the social security budget is demand led is an important aspect.

The other cap is on eligibility. It goes back to the point that I made to the convener. The way in which we change the trajectory in spending is by changing eligibility and taking people out of being eligible for a payment. That, in essence, is how to tackle it.

So, yes, the budget is demand led, is based on eligibility and goes up by inflation. However, as I alluded to earlier, the Government could spend money differently if it did not have to mitigate UK Government policies. There is a separate discussion to be had about what could be done with the money if we were not mitigating.

Not very long, unfortunately. In the usual circumstances, the Scottish Government would have knowledge about what would be in a bill before it is introduced, but that did not happen in this context. That makes co-operation between the two Governments difficult, particularly on fraud. We have been working on how the bill could be changed and have reached that end of the process. Work is on-going to get the underlying information, and a series of steps has been undertaken.

David Wallace will be able to go into as much detail as the committee would like about how we deal with fraud and error, which is the kind of work that we would undertake to recover the £36 million.

It has been given extra tools through the Social Security (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 2025. Additional information on audit will be provided, which will help. The work done during the progress of that act, which the Parliament recently debated and passed, will assist the agency. That is an example of an additional tool that will be in the agency’s armoury, once we go through the secondary legislation process in the Parliament.

I will provide some context on the timing of that. The UK bill that we are talking about has still not passed through the UK Parliament. It has not yet been finalised, so I go back to the point—

Do you mean in relation to social security in general?

Yes, the plan is a financial document, but the important aspect of such work is to take it back to first principles. We have a policy on reviews. We have clearly, and rightly, been challenged on the fact that the review percentage for the Scottish Government is different from that for the DWP; I went through that with Mr Hoy earlier.

We have taken it back to the first principles of what a review is supposed to do: to ensure that someone gets a benefit that they are entitled to, and that they do not get a benefit for which they are not eligible. That is a more robust way of reassuring ourselves that the system is working correctly—we take it back to that first principle of whether a policy is delivering as was intended.