 Good morning, everybody. Welcome to the eighth meeting of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee in 2021. I ask all members to ensure that the mobile phones are on silent. Apologies have been received from Natalie Dawn and Evelyn Tweed attending as Natalie's substitute. This morning, we are considering two SSIs. As outlined in the agenda, we will start with the disability assistance for children and young people's Scotland amendment regulations first before moving to consideration of the winter heating assistance regulations. There will be the opportunity for a change of officials between agenda items 2 and 3. I welcome to the meeting Ben Macpherson, Minister for Social Security and Local Government, and Jennifer Sinkler, Social Security Policy Manager. Online, we are also joined by David Hilber, team leader of case transfer policy and Kirsten Simonette Lefavre, who is the principal legal officer at the Scottish Government. I would like to invite the minister to make an opening statement on the disability assistance for children and young people amendment regulations, and then I will turn to questions for members. The disability assistance for children and young people Scotland amendment regulations 2021, before us today, are required to support the introduction of child disability payment. For context, we started taking applications for child disability payment on 26 July as part of a pilot. It is the first regularly recurring disability benefit to be delivered by Social Security Scotland. It will make a significant contribution to the lives of disabled children and young people in Scotland, their families and carers. Feedback on the pilot has been positive so far. Systems and processes are working well, and we remain on track to roll out child disability payment nationally from 22 November 2021. Moreover, as I have set out in my recent letter to the committee on 11 October, I marked the beginning of our ambitious case transfer process. The first disability living allowance for children awards has now been selected for transfer to child disability payment, and those individuals will continue to get the right payment at the right time and will not have to apply or be reassessed as part of the transfer process. Turning to the regulations before us today, the amendments that we are proposing are largely technical in nature. Those were identified as necessary after the principal regulations were passed. There is significant complexity in the principal regulations, the case transfer process and interactions with the reserved system. The changes that we are seeking to make now reflect that, leading up to the national delivery of the benefit, we are continuously learning lessons and identifying areas where we can improve arrangements. The amendments will allow for young people to remain on the CDP after the age of 18 in specific circumstances. They will clarify the period that Social Security Scotland has to complete a redetermination and extend the scenarios where short-term assistance is payable. Those changes will introduce further flexibility, bring more fairness to decision making and will help to improve outcomes for disabled children and young people. Those amendments also introduce the ability to backdate child disability payment awards for case transfer clients where they meet one or more of the exceptions set out in the regulations. Those exceptions describe situations where child disability payment awards resulting from the transfer process can be higher than the disability allowance for children award they replace due to differences in eligibility rules between the two benefits. The backdating provisions ensure those whose awards are selected later in the transfer process are not disadvantaged when compared to those whose awards were chosen earlier where one of those exceptions applies. Those rules were not included in the principal provisions as discussions with the department for work and pensions as to the effects of backdating on reserve systems were at that point on-going. Though we expect those exceptions to apply to only a very small number of individuals, if any, it is important that no one whose award transfers is worse off than they would have been had they made a new application and that consistency is important. Just before I conclude, I want to emphasise that I remain extremely grateful to Dr Sally Witcher and the Scottish Commission on Social Security for their scrutiny of those regulations and their general work in their leadership and scrutiny through SCOS. Though I note that the case transfer provisions fall out with their remit, that is an important point. I welcome this opportunity to assist the committee in its consideration of the regulations and look forward to any questions that members may have. Thank you very much indeed minister, that is very helpful. I will now take questions from colleagues. Some colleagues have indicated in advance that they would like to ask some questions in certain areas and if others would like to come in if they could indicate to be in the normal way either in person or online, that would be very helpful. Thank you. The first turn to Pam Duncan-Glancy, please. Thank you, convener, and good morning minister and others. Thanks very much for joining us. I thank you for setting that out. It is really helpful. I want to start from the point that you have just discussed around SCOS's role. I also want to put on record my thanks to the work that they do in getting through some quite complex material, so it is really helpful to do that. What worries me slightly is that we are in a circumstance again where SCOS has felt that they have not had the time that they need to have in order to properly scrutinise the regulations. In fact, they have said that that has meant that there has not been significant stakeholder engagement in it, which I think is of concern. I have also written to the Government in the past asking for detail the timetable for delivery, because since I came here to Parliament in May, everything that we have looked at particularly for this committee has been done in a way where we are told that there is not much time to do something. I am just seeking some reassurances, minister, that you are going to plan for this, that you do know what stages things are going to be done, and that you will try to seek time to give the appropriate amount of time for scrutiny rather than rush things through. We have had control of those benefits since 2018, and I feel like always being told that there is not much time to scrutinise things is unhelpful. If you could confirm that there is a plan, go on for the further roll-out and that there will be time for scrutiny. First of all, I would emphasise that we are in one of the most significant periods in the devolution of social security with the on-going pilot of the national roll-out from 22 November as we go into the roll-out of ADP next year. First of all, in terms of scos and support for scos and making sure that scos is able to undertake its role effectively and properly, we recognise that scos does an invaluable job, as we have both emphasised, and we are committed to providing both the time and the resources to allow them to do it properly. Ministers meet with the chair and will meet with the board soon and will regularly engage with them on an on-going basis. We acknowledge that they have been under pressure, and we will always work as flexibly as we can with scos to make sure that we are working considering the demands on their workload as part of our considerations, and we are always mindful of that. We work as flexibly as we can, for example in sharing drafts and providing additional information, but for both the Government and scos, social security legislation is complex and fast moving at this time. We aim to provide two months for scrutiny regulations, but, as you have noted, that is not always possible to do so. To help to provide additional support, it would be helpful for the committee to be reminded and emphasised today and to be told that we are recruiting an additional two members of staff to support scos. When people are in post, the total secretariat resource will have more than doubled since the election, so that will go up to five people. We are also recruiting an additional board member, which you may already be aware of, at present. I turn to the points around the elements of the regulations before us that were not able to be scrutinised by scos, so the provisions on case transfer from the DLA to the CDP. The provisions relating to case transfer were made under section 95 of the 2018 act, and there is no requirement under the 2018 act to refer provisions made under section 95 to scos, especially considering the incredibly busy programme of work that the commission is undertaking at present on a variety of different regulations. We did not wish to request scrutiny of provisions that fall out with their remit, so that is why we did not refer those regulations. Some of the provisions were shared for information and context, however, to keep them cited. I hope that that gives you the reassurance of the importance that we place on scos's work, the evaluation that they provide, the stakeholder engagement that they are part of and that we are determined to work collaboratively with them to make sure that they are resourced suitably going forward. It absolutely does in terms of the work around scos, not so much about the planning for future regulations and trying to ensure that there is enough scrutiny and timing that we do not have to continually rush them. We have had control of the benefits since 2018, and it feels like we are now in a situation where we just get a lot of regulation or a piece of legislation, of course, the primary legislation that, again, we were told to have to be done quickly. Whilst I want to do as much as possible, as fast as possible, because we need to get money in people's pockets, can you reassure us that the Government has a plan to make sure that everything is on schedule, that we know at what point things are going to have to come to committee so that we do not face the continued rushing? The point about the primary legislation that we passed before the recess is almost a separate area of consideration, although I note and appreciate the accelerated time of which we were all engaged in to deliver that to make sure that it was an additional December payment of the Scottish CARES assistance supplement. However, with regard to regulations more generally going forward, of course, the pandemic has had an effect on the delivery timetable going looking historically, and then we are now in a process of the very important delivery timeframes with regard to both CDP and ADP. The amendments before us today are about improving the regulations after the experience of the pilot and consideration from both the agency and the Government on how we do the right thing and make improvements in advance of the national roll-out on 22 November. That is a fast-moving situation, but that is because we are all determined to deliver and deliver well when it comes to social security benefits in Scotland. I am happy to take that point away, convener, if that would be helpful to also just set out any further information that we can give on timetable going forward. That would be helpful. Thank you, convener. Thank you very much. That is indeed helpful. I am hoping that the committee can liaise, obviously, with the Minister for Parliamentary Business in terms of that timetabling and the timescales going forward, but also in terms of the points that Mr Duncan Glancy raised around SCOS, the resource that has been provided that you are outlining, I think will be very helpful and be welcomed, but we will continue to liaise with SCOS to ensure that they have the capacity to be able to carry out the scrutiny work that they have to do. Next set of questions come from Jeremy Balfour. Thank you, convener, and good morning, minister and your team. I think that I would just pick up the same point as my colleague Ray McGartney. Maybe it would be helpful if you could write to us with a timetable of where things were likely to come. Can I just check as well according to what we have, that those regulations were not seen by any stakeholders, so there was no consultation with stakeholders? Is that correct? I appreciate that they are quite technical, but I just want to check whether that was the case in the situation. David, can I bring you in at this point because you have been leading on the development of, I presume you mean the case transfer aspects of the regulations, Mr Balfour? David, are you able to come in on that briefly? Yes, that's fine. Thank you, Mr Balfour. That's right. Those are very technical amendments. Most of them are relating to how the case transfer process relates to the reserve system and making sure that, especially when the introduction of backdating, which is something that's not typically that's not typical of disability benefits generally, we needed to make sure that how those interactions worked were correct. We did not do a range of stakeholder activity with regard to those provisions, but we are confident that they are correct. We've worked closely with the Department for Compensions to make sure that they work well and we're more confident that they're going to work as intended. If I can move on to two more technical areas. The first one is in regard to one of the recommendations that you haven't accepted, and that is should people from CDP be eligible for STA, if they're moving on to ADP. I think you've said no to that. I'm just wondering if you could maybe explain further why you have done that, because rightly so we have said that we want to do with dignity, fairness and respect. Should CDClaimants not be treated as a transfer on to ADP and not as a new claimant, if they're already in the system and must prove them that we need that assistance. So why are we making them go back and do that whole technical re-applying? It seems to me not treating people with that kind of respect that we were hoping for. Mr Balfour, I've taken the point that you want me to talk about short-term assistance, but would you like me to talk about just the question of can you transfer from CDP to ADP more generally as well? Well, I think it's more in regard to this if we're moving on to ADP, so I think it's why do people have to re-apply if they're already on the system and have already been identified as having a need that would identify them for benefit? Thanks for that, Clartyn. I thought you were coming at both points. I'm going to be touched on short-term assistance as well briefly at the end, if I may. First of all, to set out clearly that CDP and ADP are different forms of assistance with different eligibility criteria, and that's the initial position that we have to consider this matter. So when a person applies for CDP, they know that they can only be on it until they reach 18, but can make an application for ADP from 16. I should say that they can only be on it until they reach 18, apart from in certain circumstances, if those regulations are passed for which we want to continue payment for a good reason, and I can go into that in more detail if that's helpful for the committee shortly. In the context of them being different forms of assistance with different eligibility criteria, if we were to treat the process as a transfer from one form of disability assistance to another, the information that is held by Social Security Scotland in relation to a CDP award would not likely be sufficient to make a decision on entitlement to ADP for many clients. Therefore, we would need to ask the clients to provide further supporting information and, if they were making an application to ADP, hence why we have a situation where a new claim will need to be made in our system, but there will be two years in which to make that new claim. The transition from DLA to PIP is also done by application for the same reasons. On the basis that it is in the best interest for all CDP clients, individuals on CDP will be required to make a new application to ADP with extensive support and advice, and that's obviously really important, available to young people and their families on an on-going basis as they're undertaking the process. Just for clarity and emphasis, we intend to make the process as smooth as possible, with no gap in payment, which is obviously very important, to ensure that it will be less disruptive than the current system. I should also be noted that SCOS have welcomed the additional flexibility in the system and have commented that it is likely to strengthen the rights of clients undergoing the process. Therefore, we consider that the process and approach represent the best client journey for all clients. With regard to short-term assistance in that context, when we sat together around the table in doing the 2018 act, short-term assistance was a new initiative that we introduced for good reason. It is available to people who experience a loss or reduction in award as a result of a redetermination or an appeal, and therefore it is not available to those who are moving between forms of assistance. If we were to extend the scope of short-term assistance to cover a transition between CDP and ADP, then that would represent a fundamental departure from the policy intent of short-term assistance. The transition from ADP to ADP has been designed, as I said, to be as easy as possible for clients and their families. We do not envisage that short-term assistance would be a significant consideration in that process, but we will monitor the process to understand if and how further support to clients can be provided and we will consider that on an ongoing basis. I am grateful for my explanation, minister. I wonder whether I hold them committed back too long, because I understand that this is quite technical stuff, but I am slightly unclear in regard to—I understand that there is a different criteria for deciding someone's benefit between DLA and PIP. My understanding—this may be mine and could help me with some more information later—is that the ADP is actually the same criteria. I did not appreciate the different criteria for getting an award. I wonder whether, perhaps, in a letter, you could maybe just explain that a bit further to me. I do not want to delay the committee, because, obviously, we are going to agree these today, but I would just be interested in my own information if that would be possible. My final question is—I welcome this—I am just wondering why it happened in the first place. I managed to throw out the night forward, because I think that I raised this when we came forward originally. You have changed it back to what it is in the regulations that they were. Was that done because of consultation? Was it done because it was a simple error that was made by drafting, or was it because of a great intervention by backbench MSPs? First of all, on the point with regard to your last questions, where you asked for clarification, I am happy to take that away. As I said, the situation is that the information in relation to a CDP award would not be likely to be sufficient to make a decision on entitlement to ADP for many clients, so for some it could be, but for many it wouldn't be. I do not know if you want to touch on that at all, Jennifer. I am just building on what the minister has said. I think that it was just recognition that there would be different eligibility right area and just to ensure that people don't lose out in their full entitlement, that the safest and secure method would be to make the application for ADP, but I appreciate that the ADP regulations will become before the committee and be able to discuss them in more detail. In relation to the short-term assistance, looking back to the policy intent, which I think was there to support people challenging decisions for the same type of assistance and not for transitioning to a new type of assistance, I think that that is where we are focused on for the policy intent and why we will not be bringing forward the short-term assistance for the transition. Further information, Mr Belfer, to you and the committee, then we will be forthcoming in that. With regard to your second question and why the Scottish Government has changed its mind about the phrase throughout the night, and just to say that this was, as you may recall, discussed at committee in March and it was agreed by the then cabinet secretary that we would monitor the issue closely to ensure that our intent is what is carried out. The term was initially used to be consistent with throughout the day, but we have changed it as the sector is now more comfortable with at night. We have changed the wording for nighttime care needs from throughout the night to at night in response to answer your question directly, to feedback on concerns that are different criteria on the level of care that will be applied under CDP from what is currently applied under DLAAC. Scots welcomed the amendment in the regulations before us today to the wording from throughout the night to at night and said that the changes in the wording will put beyond doubt what the requirements are and will reduce scope for uncertainty about how much care is required to constitute throughout the night. Can I thank the minister again for that answer and can I thank the change? I think it really is. Although it may seem quite technical in terminology, I think it will make a very big difference to many people who are applying for this. I welcome that. I also just put on record my thanks to your team for all the work that they've done around these regulations. They are technical, but they are actually going to be very important for people applying, so I thank your team for that and thank you for the changes that you have made. I reiterate those thanks on behalf of the committee. I would like to bring in now briefly Marie McNair and then with a short supplementary, Pam Duncan Glancy, please. I just wanted to mention that I share the same concerns that were raised by Pam Duncan Glancy about the capacity that is available to Scoste to properly scrutinise, so I just wanted to put that on record. Mr Balvers, can I kind of ask my question regarding the short-term assistance, but how different is the criteria between CDP and ADP? Thanks to Marie McNair for that question. I would simply refer to my previous answers and the extra information that Jennifer provided in that supplementary. As I have stated, there is a difference between when there are considerations around people who experience a loss or reduction in award as a result of a determination and have requested a redetermination on an appeal and a situation of transfer. However, we will monitor the process to understand if and how further support to clients can be provided. However, I would just emphasise as well the support and advice that there will be for people in that two-year window in most cases where they are on CDP and over 16 heading towards 18 and all that support that will be provided to help them in their journey to apply for adult disability payment. On access to short-term assistance payments, the Scottish Commission on Social Security suggested that the CDP recipient that applies for ADP might be protected by non-discriminary provision in the European Convention of Human Rights. What is your view on that and has the legal advice been sought about it? With regard to—could you just be more specific on that question? There was obviously a reference from the Scottish Security Commission on Social Security suggesting that the recipient then applies for ADP, but it might be protected by the non-discriminary provision of the European Convention on Human Rights. I am just asking what your view on that is and has legal advice been sought. If you don't have the information to hand, we can—if you certainly could pass it on to the committee or even write to me later. I would like to take that away unless, Jennifer, you have anything you want to add on that. I think that it's one of the more technical ones that there is the legal risk that we need to be explored on. That sort of is something that we'd be happy for the committee to write back to. I welcome some feedback on that. Thank you very much, colleagues. I have a short supplementary from Pamdington Glancy. Thank you very much. My point was going to be on human rights but also on the short-term assistance just to say that it's a really welcome inclusion and I'm pleased to say that it will make a material difference to people's lives. I understand that the criteria are different for the two payments but I just wondered that offering someone a short-term assistance at a really difficult time in their life during a transition period isn't giving them a guarantee to the next benefit that has different eligibility criteria. It's merely easing that process in what I think is a relatively sensible way because the two benefits may not be called the same thing but they are the same type of benefit. So I wondered if you would reconsider again on the basis of that. I thank Pamdington Glancy for the points on this important aspect with regard to the short-term assistance. I'll bring Jennifer in in a minute but I think that the important point to recognise is that, as individuals make their journey from CDP to ADP in that period between being 16 and 18 in most circumstances, their CDP payment will continue as and when until either they move to ADP or they become 18 and ineligible. The question of short-term assistance, therefore, is less of a material consideration but there are, of course, we have considered it in the round and as I've stated several times now, that we will continue to keep it under review for good reason as to if there's further support that can and should be provided but I don't know if you want to say anything more on that, Jennifer. I think just to re-emphasise, the CDP broadly replicates the eligibility criteria for the disability living allowance and the adult disability payment mirrors the personal independence payment eligibility requirements. While they're the same, the CDP to ADP don't mirror each other essentially for the eligibility criteria so we have to really carefully consider those things. I think what the minister said in terms of we are in built, you know, the ability to pay people beyond the age of 18 to remain on CDP whilst waiting their determination for ADP will provide that added you know, the flexibility and that security to make sure that nobody, there isn't that break of entitlement and that people do, you know, they are getting the same money. Yes, it may not be the same amount that they're awarded on CDP as to ADP but there won't be any breaks of entitlement during that period and that's really what we're trying to go for as best possible. That situation where the continued payment until a determination is made is something that's in these regulations today so that will be important and welcome change I'm sure. Thank you very much indeed colleagues. If there are no further questions, we'll move on to agenda item 2 which is the formal debate on the motion. I remind the committee that only members and the minister may take part in the formal debate. I invite the minister to move the motion s6M-01183 that the Social Justice and Social Security Committee recommends that the disability assistance for children and young people's Scotland amendment regulations 2021 be approved. Thank you minister. Do any members wish to speak on the debate on the motion? Good. As no member wishes to speak on the debate, I'll put the question on the motion. The question is that motion s6M-01183 in the name of Ben Macpherson be approved. Are we all agreed? Thank you. We are agreed. The motion is therefore approved. In light of timing, I invite colleagues to agree that the clerks and I will produce a short factual report of the committee's decision and arrange to have it published. Are colleagues content? Excellent, thank you very much. I would like to thank colleagues who have joined us both in person and virtually for their time this morning and will allow a short time to transfer over of officials. Thank you very much. Briefly, I suspend. Thank you very much indeed. At agenda item 3, we move to consideration of the winter heating assistance for children and young people's Scotland amendment regulations 2021. Minister is now joined by Ianna Isill, the disability benefits policy manager and, online, we have Stephanie Varlogiu, senior principal legal officer and furlough legal representative from the Government, Natalie Barton. Again, I ask the minister to make an opening statement, please. Thank you, convener. Our intention behind the child winter heating assistance has always been to mitigate the increased heating costs incurred by families of the most severely disabled children and young people. As a result of having to sustain a higher temperature at home during winter due to their disability or long-term condition and having to heat their home throughout the night due to night-time care needs. When launching the payment last year, we decided to base eligibility on entitlement to the highest rate of care component of DLA. To receive this rate and individuals' needs must be throughout the day and night. At the time, we considered this an appropriate proxy for identifying individuals with the most severe needs who are likely to have increased heating costs. Earlier this year, two individuals raised appeals in the first-tier tribunal after being determined ineligible for child winter heating assistance. Both had previously been entitled to the higher rate of the DLA care component. However, as a result of UK Government policy, upon turning 16, it had to transfer to PIP. The appellants argued that it was unfair that they were not eligible for child winter heating assistance simply because of that required transfer. Those appeals and stakeholder feedback prompted us to reconsider the regulations and the extent to which they meet the policy objective. That resulted in the amending regulations before us today extending eligibility for child winter heating assistance to individuals aged 16 to 18 on the enhanced rate of PIP daily living component. The proposed regulations will allow child winter heating assistance to be paid to those who lost out last year. They will also remedy the situation going forward until the case transfer to CDP is completed. Moreover, the regulations will ensure that we provide the payment to all those most severely disabled 16 to 18-year-olds in Scotland. If those regulations are passed, this year's payment will reach approximately an additional 5,000 clients, taking the total number to over 19,000. With energy prices currently rising substantially, this is an important step in our efforts collectively to support some of society's most vulnerable people. I am grateful again to Dr Witcher and the Scottish Commission on Social Security for their assistance, and I am also grateful to the individuals and stakeholders who have engaged constructively with us. I welcome the opportunity again to assist the committee in its consideration of the proposed regulations and look forward to any questions that members may have. Thank you very much indeed. Once again, Minister, I will take questions from colleagues who have submitted in advance and those who have indicated in the usual way if they would like to do so either online or in person. The first question is from Jeremy Balfour to be followed by Pam Duncan-Glancy. I suppose that I would have a policy differentiate, minister, in that the way to resolve this for me would have been to give any child who was on DRA or PIP the winter-winter allowance. You would not have to be on the highest rate. I think that I made that point previously in committee in my last Parliament. If we are looking at heating your house, it is often during the day, and it is not often at night when you are in bed, you can have less heating on. We are still excluding children who are on the DLA at the lower rate or not on the higher rate of PIP from getting mispayment. If we are trying to help people who have higher heating costs, those are vulnerable individuals as well. I wonder what the policy intent was behind that. As I set out in my opening statement, our priority in this situation is to provide financial help to households with the most severely disabled children and young people. As I said, that is to mitigate increased costs as a result of having to potentially heat their homes to a higher temperature during winter and to heating their homes throughout the day and night. It is important to recognise that we are the only part of the UK to do that. We consider that the highest rate of the care component of DLA and CDP, as well as the enhanced rate of the daily living component of PIP, is a reasonable proxy for identifying those with the highest care needs who may incur increased heating costs over winter. We therefore decided to extend entitlement to child winter heating assistance to all the young people entitled to the enhanced rate of the PIP daily living component only. We appreciate that there are on-going considerations around that more generally in terms of energy costs and considerations around heating. In the report to the draft amendment regulations, the committee will note that Scots recommended that following the completion of the transition from DLA to PIP to CDP and ADP, the Scottish Government should review passport arrangements to CWHA to ensure consistency and equitable treatment for people with the same relevant needs, including specifically with regard to night-time care needs. We accepted that recommendation and we have a firm commitment to the formal evaluation of our social security payments, as you know, based on the findings. The evaluation of child winter heating assistance will report next year and, of course, we will consider its findings carefully. I think that it is a missed opportunity. Just on a technical question, you have removed the requirement to make the payment by 31 December. I wonder why not putting either a later deadline or actually just meet the 31 December. Why is there delay in regard to that payment being made? That is something that we thought about carefully. It is important to emphasise that we still intend to pay eligible children's winter heating assistance clients as quickly as possible and expect to have the vast majority of the now over 19,000 eligible children and young people paid by the end of the year. However, this year, making payment safely to everyone will require additional time and care because we are, if the regulations are passed, extending eligibility to around 5,000 young people in receipt of PIP. In addition to the increased client volumes, that will have a consequence of also meaning that we have client data coming from a brand new source. We need to just consider the practicalities around that. In the event that payments are not made by 31 December, we expect fewer than 10 per cent to be impacted. However, our intention is that the vast majority will be paid before 31 December. It is also important to emphasise that it makes sense to provide support when it is needed most. That is something that we have thought about carefully. The coldest months in Scotland tend to be January and February, as we know together. We have user research that suggests that some clients would prefer to receive their winter heating benefits in those months. Moving forward, removing the deadline may help us to meet the needs of clients by paying benefits at a time that suits them best. That will be a consideration for us next year once we are able to evaluate the process this year and the feedback that we will receive. It is also important to appreciate that, with the launch of the CDP and the start of case transfer from DLA for children to CDP, Social Security Scotland is entering a crucial and complex phase in its work this winter. The flexibility in making determinations on child winter heating assistance cases gained through removing the 31 December deadline will ensure that Social Security Scotland can introduce and deliver all its benefits to a high standard and on time, ultimately benefiting all our clients. We are determined to deliver as many clients as possible by the 31 December. We are confident that the vast majority of people will get their payment before the 31 December. Going forward, removing the deadline will give us that flexibility to consider next year and in years after, if a different period in the winter would be more advantageous for more clients. Pam Duncan-Glancy, please. Briefly on the question that you just had from Jeremy about the deadline, I take the point that people may prefer it in January or February. It would be good to see that research. Maybe that just means that you could move the deadline to those dates. I just feel like having a deadline gives people certainty. It is also consistent with what you require people applying for benefits to do. They have a number of stringent deadlines, so it would be much more congruent to say that we too have deadlines and you have deadlines, rather than you have deadlines and we have none. That would probably be a way forward. My question is also about eligibility. As we know, more than half of people who are living in poverty have a disabled person in their household. That is a disabled person of any severity. If we are looking to reduce levels of poverty in Scotland and, in fact, child poverty, 34 per cent of children live in households with a disabled person in them, 34 per cent in poverty, it is really important that we look at those criteria. I think that there are significant levels of poverty in Scotland just now. There is an opportunity for us to say that, regardless of age or severity of your impairment, disabled people have higher costs of living. They are more likely to live in poverty, and there is an opportunity here for us to do something in Scotland that will significantly address that and make that winter payment. I am just asking—I am making a policy point and I am asking if you recognise that this is one way that you could begin to reduce the poverty that all disabled people experience, not just people with the most severe conditions. I think that I have spoken somewhat already about eligibility, so I do not want to, in consideration of time, repeat that. However, I emphasise that the policy intent is being met by what we have done in introducing regulations in 2020 and seeking to improve them today. Of course, Pam Duncan Glancy rightly emphasises that there are wider considerations around support for families in the most need and considerations around winter benefits. The committee will be aware that we are also preparing to introduce two additional new benefits to support households with their heating costs during this winter. Pension age winter heating assistance will replace winter fuel payments, and during the winter, I should have said, not this winter. We are preparing to introduce two additional new benefits to support households with their heating costs during the winter. Pension age winter heating assistance will be replacing winter fuel payments and low income winter heating assistance will be supporting around 400,000 households on low incomes in due course. We also recognise the need to consider further targeted support for disabled adults of working in age and an acknowledgement of the fact that households with a disabled person irrespective of age are more likely to be in financial difficulties, as Pam Duncan Glancy rightly emphasised. We will therefore continue to consider whether and if so, how we can better support disabled adults over the winter months. However, at the moment, the focus of our efforts is prioritising support for the most vulnerable children and young people. That is what this benefit and improvement regulations are all about. Thank you, convener. Good morning, minister, and to your team as well. It was just carrying on from that line of questioning. I wondered in terms of identifying those with the highest need, what work could have been undertaken with the third sector to help to identify that unmet need and specifically, for example, working with charities such as Chaz to see whether we can encourage people to come forward and understand what the minister has said in terms of early days of the benefit, but is that something that the Government is actively looking at? Of course. Thank you, Mr Briggs, for that good question. The Government continues, on an on-going basis, to engage the third sector on our considerations around social security generally and, of course, our engagement with both Scolos and Dacbeg, as well as the third sector organisations, are part of our core work. I did talk about the evaluation that we are undertaking, and, of course, that will be internally, but we will receive considerations from third sector organisations on an on-going basis, both through official engagement and ministerial engagement with different third sector organisations. I will bring in a minute to talk about any official engagement that may have been or may be on-going, but it is important that we also emphasise that we have the formal process of engagement through Scolos, which provides that stakeholder input. I do not know whether you want to say anything further on that. I just wanted to add that the technical and heating assistance was also part of the consultation that we undertook. As it is an automated payment, as the minister has pointed out, we use the highest rate care component of DLA and CDP, and if the amendments pass the enhanced rate of the daily living component of PIP as a proxy to understand which children and young people need the payment most. Thank you for that. I think that my question, or line of questioning, was more about those who are maybe not currently in receipt of benefits, but who would benefit from this. I think that that unmet need question and those organisations that actively raise this with MSPs across the parties is something that, going forward, it would be useful to look at maybe scoping how reaching out to the third sector might help to increase and extend that potential uptake. I take that point and, of course, we collectively, in terms of the benefit take-up strategy, which we will be discussing in the period ahead together, collegially, on how we work, not just through the Government but through all channels available to raise awareness of what is available and encourage take-up. That is an incredibly important point, and one that the Government is engaged in very seriously and proactively. I would just say to Mr Briggs that, of course, I am happy to give an undertaking to whether it is from CHAS or others to continue to receive stakeholder feedback, and we have formal processes with regard to that. I also note that the changes that are before us today are partly based on stakeholder feedback, so I hope that that is reassuring to him and the committee and those listening that the fact that we are here today seeking approval of those regulations has somewhat been based on stakeholder feedback. Thank you very much indeed, minister. I have no further questions. I will move on to the formal debate on the motion. Once again, I remind the committee that only members of the committee and the minister may take part in the formal debate. I invite the minister to move the motion S6M-01319 that the Social Justice and Social Security Committee recommends that the winter heating assistance for children and young people Scotland amendment regulations 2021 be approved. Thank you very much. Do any members wish to speak in the debate on the motion? Excellent. As no member wishes to speak in the debate, I will put the question on the motion. The question is that motion S6M-01319 in the name of Ben Macpherson be approved. Are we all agreed? Thank you. We are all agreed that motion is there for approval. Once again, I would like to invite colleagues in the interests of time to agree that Clarkson and I will produce a short factual report on the committee's decisions and arrange to have it published. We are all content. Thank you very much to officials who have attended today and to the minister. That concludes the public part of this morning's meeting. I suspend the meeting and move to private sessions. Anyone that is appearing online, if they could now move to the Microsoft Teams link, please.