Chamber and committees

That gets to the overarching position of the strategy—how we promote the wider support that is available and encourage individuals to engage with it. That is one of the challenges that the Government faces. As we recover from the pandemic, the Government is strongly focused on how to provide that wraparound support. Social Security Scotland is an important part of that, and the benefit strategy that we are looking at today emphasises and considers ways that we can do that by encouraging the take-up of benefits, informing individuals about what is available and providing them with the support that they need to access that.

Marie McNair’s question is more widely applicable to service delivery in the round. I refer her to the Covid recovery strategy that was published a few weeks ago by the Deputy First Minister, which makes it clear that the Government’s focus is on taking a person-centred approach. People are at the heart of what we are doing collectively, in terms of public service provision. Social Security Scotland is a key part of that as one of a variety of public services that need to work together to support individuals.

That is a really important area, but it is also very challenging for all of us. Our policy evaluation programme will set out clients’ experiences of the factors that helped or hindered their applying for the benefit. That will provide important context for the situation in which the strategy operates: that feedback will be important. We will be looking for testimony that services were well advertised, that information was clearly accessible and that the application process was straightforward. To an extent, our policy evaluation programme will play a role in evaluating and monitoring in the way that Pam Duncan-Glancy rightly emphasises is important.

In addition, Social Security Scotland’s client insight programme will report on whether clients have been adequately supported by knowledgeable and understanding staff through the process of receiving a fair decision on their applications, so we will receive feedback on that. Of course, we report information annually in our charter measurement framework, which was published last week on 3 November. There are other processes and bits of work to make sure, rightly, that we monitor and evaluate—as much as we can—where we are as a service, what we have improved, what we need to improve further and how we make sure that we serve as effectively and informatively as possible those who access the service.

First, I thank Pam Duncan-Glancy for all that she does to promote and emphasise the Scottish child payment in her own work, because that is an example of how members can help to raise awareness of the benefits that are available, by utilising their initiative and coverage and through their constituency work.

There are some initiatives around the Scottish child payment that I think you will be interested in. We have commissioned Ipsos MORI to conduct research that will inform an interim evaluation of the initial roll-out of Scottish child payment for zero to five-year-olds. As with evaluations of our other benefits, that will contribute to a wider report that will combine commissioned research with what we know from official statistics and population surveys. The evaluation is due for publication in the summer of 2022, so that work will help us in the areas that Pam Duncan-Glancy has rightly highlighted.

We also recently published our evaluation strategy for the devolution of disability benefits. It contains a range of thematic projects up until 2025, which are designed to assess the safe and secure transition of benefits from the DWP. That will help with regard to initial experiences of the application and decision-making approach, particularly around supporting information in the application process, and it will draw largely from our experience of the child disability payment. It is not related to the Scottish child payment, but it is a piece of research in the same thematic area that will help us to improve our insight and evidence.

The experience of families in applying for the child disability benefit and the impact that that has had on them and their wellbeing will be key aspects of that work. We will look at that following the full roll-out of the child disability payment later this month.

On the question about the uptake figure of 77 per cent for the Scottish child payment, it is important to recognise that, first of all, 108,000 children have benefited from the Scottish child payment, so it has been a success for a lot of people. On the estimated reduction of 3 percentage points or, rather, on the point about the figure of 77 per cent, it is important to point out that it is an initial estimate. We expect that to increase when the Scottish child payment reaches its steady state, which will occur when growth in the number of benefit recipients flattens and settles at its natural level. We are expecting the data to show an increase. Vana Anastasiadou might want to say something on the figure of 77 per cent.

I would be happy to come back to Mr Balfour on some of those points. As I said, there is engagement and continued correspondence with the sector on how we can work collectively to raise awareness of the benefit and make sure that those who are entitled and want to claim it do so. The general marketing and awareness campaigns that Social Security Scotland undertake promote the benefit as one of our 11 benefits, so wider work is taking place. I will follow up in due course on the more detailed questions that Mr Balfour asked if that is helpful.

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.