 Good morning. We welcome everyone to the Social Justice and Social Security Committee. We have one item in public today. We will hear from the Scottish Commission on Social Security on upgrading regulations. All members have already indicated questions so far and themes that you wish to cover. I'll just move to agenda item 1. Our first item of business today is a decision to take item 3 in private. Are we all agreed? Fabulous. Our next item is an evidence session on the upgrading regulations with the Scottish Commission on Social Security. I welcome to the meeting Marilyn Howard, member of the Scottish Commission on Social Security. Hi there, good morning. Thank you for accepting the committee's invitation. I've just got a few points, the usual rules about the hybrid meetings. For Marilyn, I would just ask, please wait until I or the member asking you a question, addresses you before speaking and please allow broadcasting colleagues just a few seconds to turn your microphone on before you begin to speak. Colleagues in the room should indicate to myself or the clerks if they wish to come in and ask a supplementary question. Members online should please use the chat box or the WhatsApp. So I will move straight to questions and to kick us off for theme 1. I have questions from Paul MacLeanon. Good morning, Marilyn. The first question is really just talking about adequacy of social security payments and we all know already about the impact of the cost of living crisis at the moment. Is that affecting the realisation of social security principles? I'm a new member of the Scottish Commission on Social Security, so I'm really pleased to be here to talk about the upgrading report. Perhaps in answer to your question, I could start with outlining some of the social security principles that the Commission think is particularly important in relation to upgrading and then say a little bit about the cost of living. So the key principles that we think are important, particularly with upgrading, is that social security is an investment in the people of Scotland. Social security is itself a human right and essential to the realisation of other human rights and that the social security system is there to contribute to reducing poverty and that opportunities should be sought to continuously improve the system. In terms of the cost of living, clearly increases in inflation can affect the mobility of social security to contribute to reducing poverty and to realising various human rights, such as the right to an adequate standard of living. It's difficult with mechanisms such as annual up ratings on its own to tackle the issues around the cost of living. In particular, the turbulence that we've seen and the high rates of inflation over the past year also means that annual up rating mechanisms are certainly relevant but, on their own, can't really address some of those issues. Both the UK Government and the Scottish Government have introduced various cost of living measures and also the Scottish Government doubling the Scottish child bridging payments. Obviously, they are important additions to upgrading, although, obviously, claimants have been experiencing those high rates of inflation before some of those measures could take effect. It's important that they are. Marlon, thank you for that. Can you touch on my next question, because you talked about the impact of inflation? When we looked back at it here and at inflation forecasts, there were nowhere near where they actually ended up. There are two parts to the next question. One is in the about does underlying adequacy of benefit payments need to be reviewed? As obviously, Scots have a role in that review. Colleagues will know that this is one of my favourite questions in terms of how to deal with that. Social security is a demand-led service. If the Scottish Government needs to find more money in terms of upgrading, which it has had to this year, where does it find the money? It has to take it from elsewhere. In your opinion, should the Scottish Government and the UK Government be looking to have discussions around additional borrowing powers to deal with such as that, as I said, coming back to the point that we didn't forecast inflation anywhere near where it would be this year? Certainly, the adequacy of social security benefits is really important, although in relation to the upgrading report, we haven't really looked into that, but I would think that the commission would be well-placed to participate in any review that the Government might undertake. I'm not really in a position to comment on borrowing. That's beyond the Scots' remit. I'll now move to questions from Pam Duncan-Glancy. My question relates to the points that you have raised around the covering of the cost of living. Are you aware of any plans to assess the real cost of living and the additional costs faced by disabled people in Scotland? I'm not aware of work of that nature now. Are you aware of when that was last done? I'm not, no. I don't know if any of my colleagues are. We could certainly maybe take that away and send a committee a note if we can find further information. That would be really helpful. In terms of the review of adult disability payment and child disability payment, it was really just to get an understanding of whether you thought the payments as they stand are adequate to cover those costs. Right. That wasn't something that we considered in this particular report, because we were looking at the upgrading regulations for this particular year. Obviously, the disability payments are really important, and they will feature in future work of the commission. It may well be that we can come back to that in the future. Okay. That would be really helpful if the commission was able to look to see what if any work had been done to assess the cost of that. Thank you. I have no other questions in the area. Thanks, Pam. Do you want to lead us into our next theme? I've got you down. Thank you. We've kind of touched on it, but have the commission considered any ways in which we may, in Scotland, maintain the value of benefits without changing from the CPI, because I note from your papers that you say that keeping that link is appropriate for now, but it may need to be looked at differently in the future. What kind of mechanisms are open to the Government to do that? Currently, as we mentioned in the report, the September CPI is probably the most sensible mechanism in the short term. In the longer term, particularly when agency agreements with the Department for Work and Pensions have come to an end, there may be scope to take a different approach to how inflation is measured in relation to social security uprating. We identified some issues in our 2019 uprating strategy report, so I think that we would certainly want to be involved in any future discussion about what the policy on uprating could be going forward. Did you mention a timescale for that discussion, or that you would expect that discussion to start in? I'm not aware of a particular timescale. I think that it would depend on what was sensible in relation to the agency agreements and other factors around social security. I'll move to questions from James Dornan, who is joining us online. Thank you very much, convener. Good morning. Obviously, inflation is very high just now, and it is expected to fall rapidly. Inflation is still likely to be greater in the UK than in the rest of Europe. Do you think of the implications of that for the benefit and uprating policy and also how it will affect people who need the support of the Government? Yes. Obviously, inflation is difficult to predict, but some of the forecasts at the moment are looking at potentially 4 to 5 per cent this coming year. That doesn't necessarily mean that the cost of living is going to go down. It probably means that the cost of living is perhaps not going to rise as fast as it has been doing in the recent past. The particular elements that low income households are likely to use and spend their money on disproportionately compared to higher income groups are items such as food and fuel, and they are the items that have been increasing within the overall CPI average rate. The implications are that, if inflation goes down, benefits are uprated to the higher amount, so going forward, those uprated benefits could make a greater contribution to some of the principles. For example, reducing poverty. Obviously, the way that the inflation measure and uprating works is that it copes with peaks and troughs. In theory, it evens itself out. Obviously, at a time when there is very high inflation, as we mentioned a bit earlier on, there is a case to look at, if there are particular mechanisms outside of uprating, which need to be brought to bear more quickly than an uprating would be in order to tackle issues around the cost of living. That is a lucky dip, isn't it? When the uprating is made, the reference month and how that is going to affect your payments over the coming period. The example that you have said is a positive advantage for the people who are receiving it. What sort of disadvantages do you see in the single reference months? Is there any way that users and organisations have been able to feed into the system that is being used? Well, the commission obviously looks at the regulations that the Government refers to it regarding uprating every year. As I mentioned earlier on, there was a policy report produced in 2019 concerning the broad approach to uprating. Uprating is obviously a kind of system whereby if the reference period is in September, in times of fairly stable or low inflation, things may tend to even out over time. Obviously, the issues at the moment are higher and more volatile inflation, but that is perhaps where some of the additional measures around cost of living and having various uplifts or increases during the year, rather than waiting for a particular uprating point. Obviously, the time lag between the September reference period and when people receive their increased benefit in April means that it is low to respond, but then again, it is sometimes difficult to think about what an alternative might be. Ideally, it might be something closer to when people receive their payment, but setting it in September does allow for seasonal variations to be dealt with. It also links into the timeframe for a budgeting process. It is one of the issues that could probably be looked at in longer term, but in the short term, the September figure is— I appreciate that it is difficult, but what you seem to be saying there is that the way that is being done is for the benefit of the system as opposed to the benefit of the individual. I am not criticising at all here. I understand how difficult that is, but is there a way—you were touched on it earlier on about trying to get some mechanism outside of the tickler month? Is there a way—for example, just now, we seem to be particularly badly hit—I mean the UK here—with inflation generally accepted down to Brexit? Is there a way that circumstances such as that could be taken into account or there could be some flexibility where an increase in support over a period of time, even if the inflation starts to fall, could be put into the system? Well, I think probably that flexibility is there. The cost of living payments and energy ports and Scottish child payment support has been introduced as part of that in-year flexibility. I think that it is important that any system can be administered so that people do receive the payments as soon as they can, but certainly at the moment, because of the timescale that it takes to make those decisions and implement, then September seems to be the most practicable option at the moment, but as we were saying earlier on, there is scope to maybe look at potential alternatives in the longer term. Can I just ask one final question, convener, and thank you for your patience, minister. Do you have any input into how those decisions will be made as an organisation today, as a commission? Do you have any input into what you think might be a sensible suggestion on the way going forward? The commission offers detailed advice on regulations that are referred to by ministers. If there were to be a review, I would hope and expect that the commission would be involved in some way. That's good. Thank you very much for that. Thank you, James. We'll now move to our next theme for questions on the Scottish child payment, and I'll move first to Deputy Convener Emma Roddick. Thank you, convener, and good morning to Marilyn. I note the recommendation around making clear whether an increase to the Scottish child payment is upgrading or a different sort of increase. I do doubt that folk who get more money than they expected will mind or maybe even know the difference between an increase and an upgrading, so could you explain why you think it's important for the Government to make that distinction? Yes. I think it also relates to what we were talking about a bit earlier on. Our report refers to in-year increases, and obviously they're important, particularly if upgrading is only an annual process, but actually being clear about what those increases are for can actually help people understand when their benefit will increase and by what amount and on what basis, and it will also help people who advise payments to do that. The response to our recommendations from Ministers was that officials were going to consider whether those in-year increases can be communicated a bit more clearly and earlier at the time. Okay, thank you. The Scottish child payment has, of course, had a 150 per cent increase in the last eight months and is now five times more than what campaigners originally called for in the Give Me Five campaign. On the increase to £25, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation did say that the full roll-out of the Scottish child payment is a watershed moment for tackling poverty in Scotland, and the rest of the UK should take notice. Would you agree with that? Certainly, the increase in Scottish child payment clearly makes a significant contribution to reducing poverty, but that would certainly be welcome. The payment does not exist elsewhere in the UK. I would like to ask you the same question that Child Poverty Action Group has posed. Is it not the case that if the Scottish Government can make this kind of serious investment in protecting children from poverty, so, too, can the UK Government? I am afraid that what the UK Government does is beyond the commission's remit. Thank you very much, Emma. I will now move to questions from Faisal Chowdry, who is joining us online. Thank you, convener. Good morning. I have a small question. What data and evidences were collected prior to the decision to increase the Scottish child payment? In terms of the uprating report that we have just produced, because the timescales were quite short, the commission itself did not have the chance to engage external stakeholders in discussions. Although we have done some death-based research and some of the publications from various organisations were considered, and they are referenced in the report. Thank you very much. We will now move to our next theme, and I have a question myself. Those who find themselves above the qualifying criteria for benefits are in an extremely vulnerable position just now. I know that Scots suggested that the Scottish Government might want to reexamine earnings thresholds. Do you have any opinion on how that could be calculated? For example, should increases reflect wage inflation, price inflation or another method? That is certainly a very good question. At the moment, the uprating for the earnings thresholds in carers allowance was undertaken by 5.5%, which is the average wages figure. Obviously, at the same time, CPI was higher at 10.1%. Certainly, at the moment where there is an agency agreement with the Department for Work and Pensions, then how those thresholds are uprated for relevant benefits needs to align with that. Certainly, we at the commission believe that there may be a case to reexamine how earnings thresholds are uprated in the longer term. We would hope to consider the earnings rules for Scottish carers assistance in more detail during our consideration of draft regulations, which we anticipate that we will have sight of later in the year. I am just kind of leading on from that. Many social security Scotland benefits are obviously passported from DWP low-income benefits, so eligibility is essentially out with Scotland's control. Does Scots think that a more effective way of tackling the cost of living would be to have all social security powers devolved so that we did not have to rely on passporting them from UK Government benefits? That was not something that we considered in relation to that particular uprating report, I am afraid. I am in a more general sense. Do you think that that would make that easier in dealing with Scotland's social security system? I am a new member of the commission, so I do not know if there has been previous work on this, but I certainly would not be able to respond to you today, I am afraid. That is fine, Marilyn. I do not want to put you on the spot. I will move on to questions from Jeremy Balfour. Thank you. Good morning and welcome. I hope that you are settling in and enjoying your new role, and I am a committee to look forward to working with you. I just wondered whether you previously or recently looked at passporting benefits and how they interrelate between the DWP and the new social security Scotland, and if not, is that something that you might want to look at in the future when you have time? In terms of the uprating report, we simply considered whether there was an agency agreement in place that would affect the uprating policy. Clearly, the interaction between reserved and devolved benefits is a matter that is likely to come up with regard to a range of regulations, but there was nothing specific in relation to uprating. I just want to add what you have asked. Is the increase going to reflect on household bills as well? A lot of people and families are getting hit by gas and electricity bills as well, so I do not want to add what you have asked. I just want to add this to the question. Obviously, household bills are still very high, relatively speaking. As I think that we were talking about a little bit earlier on, food and fuel in particular is increasing at a rate, which is faster than the CPI average. Although inflation may be due to reduce overall in the coming year, some of those aspects that increase household bills may still be rising, but not quite as fast as they were rising a few months ago. I am just wondering in regard to the information that you have from Scottish Government, the transparency, the quality of the information, the timeliness of the information. In previous reports, there has been an issue around getting all that information at the right time and in the right format. Was that an issue here or were you happy with how it was provided to you? Obviously, the uprating process is a very compressed timescale, so that limits the additional work that the commission could do. For example, we did not have the time to go out to external stakeholders in this instance, but we received timely and helpful responses from the Government in relation to our role. My final question is just around a bit of about the process. As a committee, we are keen to look at a human rights approach to decision making and how that works. Is that something that you, as a commission, are taking and looking at in regard to one of the principles that you are judging me by of a human rights approach? Do you see that in the decision making of the Scottish Government? Obviously, the scrutiny that the commission undertakes takes into account the social security principles and various human rights provisions. We obviously want to be looking at the regulations that are referred to us through that particular lens, and it is something that we might wish to consider further in the future. That brings us to the end of our evidence session. I want to say thank you very much to Madeline for joining us this morning and providing evidence, especially considering that you have only recently been appointed to the commission. We are really looking forward to working with you. We will now move into private session. Can members who are joining us remotely please use the team's link to join the meeting? Thank you.