Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 19, 2017

Official Report 804KB pdf

---

Social Security

The next item of business is a statement by Jeane Freeman on delivering social security for Scotland’s people. The minister will take questions at the end of her statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.

14:21  

I will set out more detail on how we will deliver new powers over social security for people in Scotland, including detail on what people can expect from Scotland’s new social security agency and how we came to the decision on its configuration. I will also update members on our progress on abolishing the bedroom tax at source and on delivering choice in universal credit through rent payments direct to landlords and twice-monthly payments.

I was delighted to be with the First Minister yesterday when she announced that the agency’s headquarters will be in Dundee, with a second major site in Glasgow. As I announced in April, our new agency will offer a local presence across Scotland, supported by efficient central functions. Throughout the consultation and since, the importance of the local presence—that human face—has been consistently expressed. That local aspect marks a key difference between our agency and what currently exists.

For the agency, our aim is twofold—it is to give every person who is entitled to one of the benefits that we will be responsible for the information, advice and support in applying that they need, and to complement what is already out there and working well. Since April, my officials have met 17 local authorities and many third sector organisations to gain an understanding of the particular needs in each local authority area and of the partnership provision, where it exists. I am grateful that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities is working collaboratively with us on that and I confirm that we are jointly developing an overarching partnership agreement on the guiding principles that will underpin delivery, to secure a consistent approach across Scotland and build local social security services that are tailored to local needs.

We will not compromise on the level of service that we require and expect and for which we will be accountable. It will always be our agency staff, not private companies, who will meet and help individuals; people will always be treated with dignity and respect; and we will always meet the expectations of the charter that we are developing with the people of Scotland. That is our ambition and our expectation.

I will now describe what the service might look like to those whom we will serve. We know that increasing benefit take-up is a challenge. If a person is unsure of what they may be entitled to, our local staff will offer advice on the benefits that we will deliver, alongside wider income maximisation support.

If a person is looking to apply for a benefit, we will support them to complete the forms and we will advise on the evidence that is needed to support their application. A person who is already receiving benefits will be able to get face-to-face advice on their payments, on notifying the agency of a change in their circumstances, on other benefits to which they might be entitled and on making a complaint when their expectations have not been met. Above all, our service will be proactive, positive and geared to helping the individual in their particular circumstances.

The agency’s local presence will be supported by vital central functions such as case handling, payment systems, the contact staff function and the corporate roles that any efficient public body needs. In determining the two locations that I announced, we followed a robust multicriteria assessment process, which was in keeping with our evidential approach to designing the social security system. Dundee will have the agency headquarters, which will support regeneration in the area and demonstrate our commitment that key public services should not be restricted to the central belt. Glasgow will have our main administrative site in the west of Scotland and will offer equal service capacity and capability, which will ensure that the agency can deliver continuity in its crucial services.

As members will see in the evidence that we published today, each part of the country was assessed against a variety of socioeconomic factors. We considered the scale of economic opportunity that more than 1,500 jobs can generate, plus the scale of the risk to business continuity if we were to choose a single site. The sensible decision was to have two major locations of a similar scale. Dundee and Glasgow both performed well against the criteria and will benefit from the ability to attract staff from a wide catchment area. That will spread the economic benefit that new jobs will bring.

We will seek efficiency and effectiveness, in line with our social security principles, but the vital central functions will not be hidden away in an industrial estate or business park, out of reach of the people whom they are there to support. The two central locations will form part of our local network. They, too, will be public facing, open, welcoming and accessible.

We have made it clear that agency staff will be present across Scotland and that the economic benefit from the new public service will be spread. I have spoken about at least 1,500 staff being required in the two central locations. As we move closer to the delivery of the first devolved benefits, we are clearer on the human resource that is likely to be required. I can therefore confirm that we expect the social security agency to be employing about 250 staff by summer 2019 to deliver our first benefits: carers allowance supplement, our best start grant and funeral expenses assistance.

In addition to the central functions, we estimate that at least 400 jobs will be created for the locally based agency presence. That number will be refined as we continue to design the service with local authorities and others, but it illustrates the scale of our commitment to local delivery.

We recognise the scale of endeavour in staffing up an organisation of such a size. We will therefore work with local colleges, employability services and other partners to ensure that we have the right supply of people to work in our agency.

I want to update members on our work to abolish the bedroom tax. I am sure that members recall that our absolute commitment to abolish the tax encountered some difficulties prior to the summer recess. I met ministers from the Department for Work and Pensions last week and I am happy to report substantial progress. We now have an agreed proposal that will fully mitigate the effect of the bedroom tax without funding being clawed back or the support that we provide to those to whom the tax applies being limited by the operation of the United Kingdom Government’s benefit cap. I hope to be in a position to lodge an amendment at stage 2 of the Social Security (Scotland) Bill to provide full legal cover for the technical solution.

I also want to update members on the work that we have been doing on the universal credit flexibilities that the DWP will deliver on our behalf from 4 October this year. The flexibilities will offer people in Scotland the choice of having their housing costs paid directly to their landlord and of having twice-monthly payments. We have tested our work directly with those who will use the service to make sure that we are being clear about what is offered, so that informed choices can be made and people are clear about what they need to do.

The social security agency delivery configuration is not about bricks and mortar but about, first and last, a public service that exemplifies our founding principles of dignity, fairness and respect—in how it works as an organisation, how it works for those who need support and how it co-operates with its partners across our public sector.

I want us to be clearly at the opposite end of the spectrum from the existing DWP system of distrust, misery and despair. That is why we have set the groundwork for a public body with a rights-based service at its heart that will employ staff who are proud of what they do and who will create a positive and respectful culture to deliver the service that we need.

I thank the minister for early sight of her statement.

As a Glasgow MSP, I am particularly pleased about the news for my region. I am also pleased with her report that the joint ministerial working group on welfare is delivering further progress on joint Government working and is ensuring smooth delivery of devolved welfare. Scots want to see our two Governments working together, so I am pleased that the minister was able to say that that is happening.

I have two sets of questions on delivery of devolved social security. She has been asked about the issues before, but they continue to bother Opposition MSPs across the chamber.

My first set of questions is about jobs. How many of the 1,500 jobs that the minister mentioned are new and how many are replacement jobs for people who are currently employed by the DWP? How many of the 250 jobs that she says will be in place by summer 2019 are new and how many are replacement jobs for existing positions in the DWP? How many of the 400 locally based jobs are new and how many are replacement jobs? I hope that my questions are sufficiently clear to get clear answers.

My second set of questions is about costs. Last week, I was not satisfied with the minister’s response to me on the topic during general questions, so I am going to have another go to see whether I can get a little bit more detail.

In June, the minister introduced the important Social Security (Scotland) Bill, which the Social Security Committee is considering. The financial memorandum accompanying the bill says that information technology provision for the social security agency will cost £190 million. Last Thursday morning, the Auditor General told the Social Security Committee that she is not in a position to assure the committee about that figure’s robustness. The minister did not include any information about costs in her statement. How can she assure MSPs across the chamber that the £190 million figure is robust?

I will do my best to answer all Mr Tomkins’s questions. I am grateful to him for welcoming parts of my statement.

Adam Tomkins asked how many of the jobs are new or replacements. We are working—in consultation with the Public and Commercial Services Union, our agency partnership forum and others—through the exact detail of each of the 1,500 jobs, including how many people we need for case management, for the payment system, for document handling and so on. Through that work, we will identify whether any—or some—of the jobs that we require for the benefits that will be devolved to us are currently done by the DWP in Scotland.

I do not have an exact number for Mr Tomkins. I expect that some jobs will be existing DWP jobs that deal now with the benefits that we will be responsible for, but the number will be small because the bulk of the DWP’s work is conducted south of the border.

As we move through that exercise, I will be able to advise Mr Tomkins exactly what I think the split will be. Where there are jobs that are comparable to jobs that are at the moment being done by DWP staff in Scotland on any of the 11 benefits, we will of course comply with the public sector version of TUPE. I apologise to members, because I clearly have a mental block about what that stands for, but I am sure that members know what I am talking about.

On the 250 staff that I said we would have working to deliver the first phase by the summer of 2019—[Interruption.] No—it is 2019. Those staff will be recruited incrementally as we build the new system. Thirty of those jobs currently exist inside the social security directorate—they are held by individuals who were recruited to begin that work for us. They are all new jobs. My expectation is that all, or almost all, of the 250 jobs will be new. Their purpose will be to deliver the new benefits. Again, as we clarify what the DWP does as regards jobs, I will be happy to advise Mr Tomkins and other members of the exact detail.

On the 400 locally based staff, I ask members to remember that, at this point, the number is an estimate—the figure might be higher or lower—because we need to work with each local authority to ensure that what we deliver fits with what is already on the ground, and we needs to take account of the different demands of different local authority areas. When it comes to deployment of staff, rural authorities, for example, will require a different configuration. Those locally based jobs are new—they are for new local social security staff who will be based in local authorities across Scotland. The DWP currently has no comparable jobs.

On IT costs, I start by reminding members—Mr Tomkins, in particular—of one of the key lessons from Audit Scotland on how to create an IT system to support a major project in a major public service. For me, the IT is a supporting part of the infrastructure; it is not the driver. Its purpose is to support us to deliver on the driver, which is social security policy—a rights-based system and so on. One of the clear lessons was that a new system should not be built all at once; the process should be taken in manageable chunks and flexibility should be built in. That is precisely how we are building the IT system infrastructure to support our overall delivery of social security. Again, as we draw down responsibility for the benefits incrementally, as we recruit staff incrementally and as we build our agency incrementally, so, too, will we build our IT incrementally.

I turn to the question about how we get an overall estimate of cost. Mr Tomkins will have read the financial memorandum in great detail, so he will know that the figure of £190 million comes with a number of caveats, so that we are sure that we all understand what we are saying. Those caveats detail the assumptions that were made in reaching the figure of £190 million. Because we are building the new system chunk by chunk, we are determining the costs as we go, chunk by chunk.

However, because we needed a financial memorandum at this point in the process, we looked—with our in-house digital experts in the Scottish Government—at what we would need for the new social security system in the round, and at what kind of IT we would need for case management, verification and documentation handling. We then used the costs that had been incurred previously in various projects. We sought to find a clear analytical basis on which to judge those costs and to arrive at a figure. On the basis of all that, we came up with a figure of £190 million.

I make it clear now, as we did at the Finance and Constitution Committee, that that figure will be refined as we go through the IT build. I understand that my officials have offered, or will shortly offer, the Finance and Constitution Committee the opportunity to hear in more detail how we will go about that build.

Overall, I hope that that gives Mr Tomkins a bit more detail and assurance that we are approaching the matter in a soundly based and robust way, and that we are taking it step by step. Those need to be the caveats around what is being done. The assumptions that we have made are very clear in the financial memorandum, and our approach is sensible and sound.

That was a very detailed question and an even more detailed answer, which is to be applauded, but I am very conscious of time. As the opening questioner for Labour, Mark Griffin gets a slightly longer question, but I urge all members and the minister to keep the questions and answers very tight from now on.

We welcome the news that the bedroom tax will finally be abolished at source, since that is a long-held ambition of Scottish Labour that goes way back to Jackie Baillie’s initial proposal for a member’s bill.

The minister talked about people being met by staff from the social security agency, not private companies, and about income maximisation. Does the Government plan to introduce stage 2 amendments to that effect, so that people have the assurance of primary legislation and future Governments cannot change those principles—which we agree with—with ease?

On universal credit, we welcome the additional flexibilities, but want to know about the situation regarding split payments, as evidence that the Social Security Committee heard last week showed that Northern Ireland is working towards those flexibilities with the DWP.

On the question whether I can commit to stage 2 amendments on the issues that he raised, the answer is no, because it is really important that I hear all the evidence that the Social Security Committee has heard. I continue to have discussions with stakeholders on a number of aspects of our bill, during which I clarify my position, which has been clear up until now, on questions about scrutiny and the charter. When we get through that process and my officials have produced themed papers for the committee on a number of issues, I will take a view on what I think will be appropriate Government amendments at stage 2, or on amendments that might be lodged that the Government could support. Therefore, at this point, I am saying neither yes nor no.

On split payments, the member is absolutely right, and I am conscious of the work that Northern Ireland is doing. He and I have discussed, as I have with his colleague Ms McNeill, some of the complexities of delivering that, notwithstanding our commitment to do it. We are working our way through some of the complexities with an eye to what Northern Ireland is doing and holding further discussions with our key stakeholder groups with regard to being able to do it in a way that is legislatively robust and deliverable.

I remind members that their questions should have no preamble or explanation; they should just be questions.

Can the minister provide more detail on what level of jobs she expects to be available in Glasgow and Dundee? Does she agree that those who have lived experience of the current system—for example, those who have taken part in the experience panels—should be encouraged to apply for some of the jobs?

The services that those two locations will provide to social security as a whole include case management, case handling, decision making, document verification, identity verification, payment systems, corporate governance and appeals, and such are the jobs that will flow from that.

With regard to who should apply, I am a firm believer in as diverse a workforce as we can possibly manage. Our workforce should reflect those we serve. However, we also need to recruit in a way that is sustainable and defensible, and we need to recruit the right people with the right skills for those jobs. That is the approach that we will take.

Would the minister agree with me that, however outward facing the new agency is, it will not be independent of the state, and that new claimants will still require independent advice on occasion? Will she commit to funding those organisations that give independent advice? Will she also give a commitment to make sure that the bill includes a statutory right to independent advice, where appropriate?

The social security agency will be an agency of Government, so I guess that in that sense it is not independent of the state—a curious phrase.

I have long accepted the importance of advocacy and advice. I am not prepared, in making this statement today in this chamber, to pre-empt the proper scrutiny of our bill as it goes through the committee stages. Just as I did not commit to what Mr Griffin asked, I am not prepared to commit to funding or to any other matter in terms of the bill. The proper process for me to take, as a responsible Government minister, is to listen to the evidence that comes before the committee, continue my discussions with stakeholders, hear what my experience panels are telling me and then form a view on what the right decisions are for Government in terms of either lodging additional amendments or accepting amendments that come from other parties. That is precisely what I will do.

Can the minister provide further detail on when she expects the local network to be up and running, which will undoubtedly benefit communities across Scotland?

As members will recall, I said that our officials are working with local authorities and other local partners to identify the right model for each local authority area. We accept that there will be differences among local authority areas across the country—the end result in the quality of service and the consistency of approach will be the same, but the model might be different.

We are looking to have early test models in place in some areas by 2018-19. They will carry out the first delivery of our first benefit, the carers supplement. At that point we will begin to test how those models work and how effective they are at working alongside other partners. Then we will roll them out across the country, as appropriate. The date that Mr Adam is looking for is 2018-19.

Does the minister accept that independent advocacy in the new system would be a good thing? Notwithstanding what she said to Jeremy Balfour, what is the Government’s position on there being independent advocacy in the new system? Does she remind open minded on that question?

To answer the second part first, yes, I remain open minded, and I am pretty open minded generally.

I see the value of independent advocacy. However, I would like to make a general point, which I have made to stakeholders and which it is important to make. I understand that, to an extent, all of us come to the question of a social security system in Scotland through the prism of our experience of how the DWP has operated and how people have been—and feel they have been—treated under that system. I need all of us to take a wee step back and recognise that prism precisely for what it is.

Although we might argue forcefully for the need for significant levels of advocacy in the current UK system, particularly around appeals and disability benefits, I think that our approach and the ways that we intend to change that system—by making better decisions the first time, removing the private sector from face-to-face health assessments and reducing significantly the numbers of those assessments—alter how we might view some of those other matters.

My mind is open on how we best approach the new system, but I need us to recognise that we inevitably and understandably look at it based on our current experience, and we need to recognise that what we are introducing will be significantly and materially different from that.

I thank the minister for early sight of her statement and apologise for missing her opening in the chamber. Does she agree that we need a statutory right to income maximisation support and that the Social Security (Scotland) Bill would be the place to put that? Does the Government intend to use powers under section 35 of the Social Security (Scotland) Bill to provide payments without an application?

I missed the last part of the question. Did the member ask about payments without application?

Yes.

I am not quite sure what the member might be referring to and I am perfectly happy to discuss it with her offline, as it were.

I accept the absolute importance of income maximisation. I note that local authorities have a role. In order to ensure that we are not handing out statutory requirements willy-nilly or left right and centre to local authorities and the Scottish Government, I need to have a conversation with my colleagues in local authorities and perhaps also with Ms Johnstone herself to look at how we might best achieve coherent income maximisation provision for people across Scotland.

Will the minister assure us that her approach to the IT system that she outlined to Adam Tomkins is dramatically different from the approach taken by her colleague Fergus Ewing to the IT systems for agricultural payments?

My approach is—and I am sure that Mr Ewing’s approach was—to learn lessons from previous IT projects that work well and those that work less well in Scotland and at the UK level.

I can talk in detail only about the approach that we are taking for social security. At some point following the presentation to and discussion with the Finance and Constitution Committee, my colleagues may choose to accept the offer from my officials to discuss the IT provisions in the bill. I am happy to extend that offer to other members across the chamber. If we do that, I hope that they will see for themselves that our approach is to build on the lessons learned across a range of IT projects, not least that for universal credit, and to take a staged, sensible and managed approach to building IT—not, as the Audit Scotland report says, going for one big bang.

I apologise to the members who did not get a chance to ask their questions. I am sure that there will be other opportunities.