 Good morning, everyone. Can I welcome everyone to the 19th meeting of 2018 of the Social Security Committee? Can I remind everyone present to turn off mobile phones or other devices to silent mode so that they do not disrupt the meeting? We have one apology this morning from the deputy convener, Pauline McNeill, who can't be with us. We move to agenda item 1, which is the decision to take an item in private. The committee has asked to agree that item 7, pre-budget scrutiny, is taken in private. Is the committee agreed? I agenda item 2, which is the subordinate legislation. The committee will take evidence on the early years' assistance best art grant Scotland regulations 2018, which is subject to the affirmative procedure. I welcome Shirley-Anne Somerville, Cabinet Secretary for Social Security and Older People. Ms Somerville is the first opportunity that we have had to have at committee, so I welcome you to your role. I look forward to working with you in the months and years ahead. I also welcome Dorothy Ogle, best art grant policy team lead and Colin Brown, solicitor of Scottish Government. You are both very welcome. Thank you for coming along. I invite the cabinet secretary to make her opening statement and then we will move to some questions. Thank you, convener. I am happy to be here today to assist the committee in its consideration of the early years' assistance best art grant Scotland regulations 2018. Those are the first set of regulations under the Social Security Scotland 2018 act, which set out the rules for a new Scottish benefit and will allow Social Security Scotland to take applications and process the BSG pregnancy and baby grant. Assuming those regulations alongside the tribunal regulations are passed, we will be able to begin making payments by Christmas well ahead of schedule. Given the DWP's failure to keep to schedule on its implementation plans, officials are now working through options to deal with the consequences and to ensure that our work remains on track to do that. The best art grants will be a form of early years assistance, provided for under section 32 and schedule 6 of the Social Security Scotland act. They will support lowering income families with children by offering financial support at key transition points in the early years. The grants are intended to improve children's wellbeing and, alongside other interventions in early years, provide the best start in life. When fully implemented, there will be three best start grants available and, in keeping with good practice, the best start grants will be implemented in stages, ensuring that we have a firm foundation before we move on to the next step. The three payments are a pregnancy and baby payment of £600 for a first child and £300 for any subsequent child that will help with the expenses in pregnancy or having a new child. An early learning payment of £250 and that will help with the cost of early learning at around the time a child may take up a nursery place to support child development. At a school age payment of £250, that will help with the cost of preparing for primary school. As I have said, the first payments of the pregnancy and baby payment will be before Christmas 2018. The next stages of early learning and school age payments will be introduced by summer 2019. In due course, there will be two additional schedules of regulations to provide for the early learning and school age grants. The current draft instrument will be amended to include schedules for all three grants. The regulations being considered today provide detailed rules relating to the pregnancy and baby payment. They include provision for eligibility, including residence, the assistance that will be available, the value of the payments and when to apply. The regulations also include provisions for timescales for the processing of redeterminations and certain issues of process relating to application dates. Regulations have been developed with extensive consultation and user engagement. We provided illustrative regulations to the committee in September 2017, and that was followed by a formal consultation that ran from 10 March to 15 June this year. As you know, the committee took evidence on draft regulations during the consultation period. I took this and other consultation responses into account when making final decisions on the best start grants, and I am pleased to be able to confirm two changes to the original policy. To ensure that more kinship carers will be eligible, the tests for responsibility for a child include receipt of child tax credits, universal credit child or child benefit for the child that they are applying for. Certain legal orders will also be taken as evidence. That means that the test now captures formal and informal kinship carers who have either secured a DWP benefit for the child that they care for or where there is a legal arrangement in place. If responsibility for a child changes during one of the application windows—for example, where a child moves from living with a parent to a kinship carer—a second payment can be made to the new carer. For parents under 20, concerns were raised about the grand parent qualifying, in particular around the rights of the child, empowering young parents and the possibility that the young parent might not benefit from the money. In response to that and in keeping with the social security principles of dignity and respect, we are offering a choice for young parents. A young parent who is under 18 or 18 or 19 and still in full-time education or training can be the qualifying person, or the grand parent can be the responsible person and qualify for the payment on the basis that they are responsible for the parent having the baby. I hope that this has been useful to the committee in their consideration, and I am happy to take questions. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. I am sure that before I moved to other committee members, I was just reviewing some notes on this, and you were kind enough to write to myself as convener on 11 September in relation to the best start grant. Just the start of your letter said, as you know, as part of this year's programme for government, we announced last week that we intend to bring forward the first payments of the best start grant pregnancy and baby grant to 2018. I suppose that this is the key bit, and I think that you referred to it in your opening statement, assuming DWP puts the required systems in place for us to do so. You also mentioned, and I welcome this greatly, that those first payments could be in people's bank accounts before Christmas, a particularly financially straining time for any individual family. Never mind when there is a new child in the household and you are a low income family. That would create a great expectation and anticipation among some that money could come just at the right time for them. I would therefore have concern about that caveat, assuming DWP puts the required systems in place for us to do so. Could you maybe expand on that a little bit, because there is some concern there? Certainly. There have been a number of concerns recently when we have been developing our work with BSG because the DWP has changed their timeframes for a particular area of work. That would, in essence, allow someone in the Social Security Agency to be able to easily have access to information about an applicant. Unfortunately, despite the fact that we began this joint planning with DWP in November 2017, and we had been working to an initial start date around June 2018 of the agency being able to have access to the customer information system, that is now not going to be the case. DWP has now informed us that there is a further delay to that work at their end. However, officials and the agency are now working on contingency arrangements to ensure that we will be able to continue with the statement that the First Minister made in her programme for government. We will still work towards payments being made before or within December 2018. That will be done because of the contingency arrangements within the agency, not because DWP completed its work to ensure that the agency could have access to the customer information system. Is that an additional expense to the new Social Security Agency to put in those contingency arrangements? What it will mean is that, in essence, the process that a client adviser will have to go through to check eligibility with an applicant will be more time consuming and will require more manual inputting. That will obviously have an impact on the agency. The agency is now looking to work through the implications of that contingency, but the important aspect to stress is that we will ensure that we will move, as promised, with our timetable of ensuring that payments have begun before the end of the year. What could the relevant theory be a notional cost somewhere down the line in relation to that? I would imagine that. Can I ask you when the Scottish Government or the Scottish Social Security Agency raises DWP in relation to those matters that can get quite technical and always understand it? Do the DWP do that in a collegiate way? Do they charge a fee for that interaction? What is the relationship there? I have said that the relationship between DWP officials and Scottish Government officials and agency officials on a working level is good. After all, this is a joint process. We cannot deliver devolved social security without the DWP in many ways. However, there comes a time when, because of the overarching priorities within a very large department such as DWP, there are implications to the timetables that they are working on and therefore the timetables that they give because of what they are doing on devolved benefits will slip. That is exceptionally unfortunate. It is something that we try to mitigate by speaking to the DWP as early as possible within our works so that they know what we wish to achieve and on what time frame. The relationship is good at an official level, but we remain frustrated that, in practice, sometimes the priority given to the devolved benefits is perhaps not the one that I would like to see. I would ask within that, do the DWP charge for the privilege of getting that relevant information or do they just do the liaise as a matter of course? The liaise is a matter of course with officials. Obviously, if we make changes to a system that we require DWP to make changes to their system, then there is a cost to DWP and there is a responsibility on ourselves to meet that cost. There is a difference between if we ask DWP to make changes to a system and just the simple liaise on between officials, which goes on as a matter of course. I am probing that relationship because I suspect that there will be other benefits and scenarios where that relationship will have to continue and endure and be delivered to make sure that the Scottish Social Security Agency can deliver Scottish Government priorities on target. I am disappointed if the suggestion is that the DWP does not see paying low-income mums much-needed money before Christmas as a priority for them if you are suggesting that it is not one of their top priorities. That would certainly disappoint me. Can you tell me if you have experienced such delays previously? There is an on-going exchange and dialogue between my officials and the DWP around the timing of all the work that we are doing for every benefit. Now, of course, there are sometimes changes and slippages to timetables, and that is why, as I said previously, we try to do that as early in a process as possible. I think that my concern about this one is that there has been a continuous number of slippages in this very important work to access the customer information service, and then we receive the latest details about the latest slippage very late on in the day and very close to when they already knew that we would be going live with a project, and that obviously has implications. Now, because of the work that the agency is doing, there are contingencies that they are working on that we can still deliver on time. That becomes more challenging. Obviously, the more complex the benefits are, and we can do that with best start grant for these initial payments. Obviously, it is a challenge to the agency on-going to ensure that we have contingencies in place if the DWP continues to change the timetables that they have. As helpful as this committee, of course, would be scrutinising the Scottish Government of Target set, get missed and payments aren't made and you'd be here having to explain why that was the situation. It's important that we get the wider picture in relation to this process, but wrapped up with all this, it is a good news story, of course, that these payments are still on track and they will be made to some of the most vulnerable families in our constituents. I appreciate that information. We'll move to some other questions now, Alice Rowland. Just on the back of those questions from the convener, I wonder whether you could explain whether the DWP has offered any detailed explanation as to the reasons for their delay. You've indicated that you don't feel the approach to the issue as a priority, but have they offered any detailed explanation as to their stance? I think that not particularly for this delay over the customer information service. I think that the challenge is that, as committee is well aware, the evolution of social security is but one aspect of what the DWP is doing. We are trying to link into an exceptionally complex DWP system that has its own challenges to be polite about it around other aspects of what DWP does. Therefore, we are not trying to link into a static system, so that is a system that is constantly changing. Therefore, it has other priorities in terms of its work on IT systems. I think that the challenge is that, when those competing priorities may happen at a wider corporate DWP level, it will have an impact on what we are doing. I don't think that there is a specific reason that we have been given—I can certainly check, but I don't believe that there is a specific reason why we have been given that this particular project has been delayed. As I said, it is but one project in a number that DWP will carry out. From your point of view, in ensuring that the payments are made by Christmas, can you say a bit more about what that practically means? How do you manage that situation? How do you ensure that those payments are made? What do you have to do to make up for that deficit of activity for the DWP? As I said to the convener, the agency will have to do with more time-consuming and more labour intensive. Rather than being able to access information on the screen directly from the DWP system, it will have to check in a different way and then manually input information into a system. That is obviously more time-consuming. The more manual input into it, we have to ensure that there are no errors in the manual input. It is obviously much easier if we can access the information, see the information and use it directly. However, I would stress that the agency has been concerned that there might be a delay for some time and that there has been slippages. That is why there has been a lot of work behind the scenes to ensure that they are looking at the contingencies to ensure that the staff are ready, trained and enabled to take that up. I would give the committee the assurance that the agency has been working for some time on those contingencies to ensure that they work and that the staff are comfortable to deliver those in due course. I take it from what you said that, at a political level, you have registered your concerns about the situation. Have you had anything approaching a detailed response to those concerns? Is there a political response to those concerns? I raised my concerns directly with Esther McBean, David Mandel, when we had the joint ministerial working group. I think that that was in September. I was down in London for that. I stressed that we were concerned that that would have an impact on our ability to deliver the project in a most efficient manner. I think that the fact that the agency has contingency measures in place means that, obviously, our timetable was not under threat. While they noted my concern on that, they also noted that the agency had contingencies in place and that we would be able to deliver the benefit. That is a concern, perhaps, that there was a reliance on the agency to work out how to deal with it, rather than to try to deal with the initial problem, which was the DWP's concern. I think that it is concerning that the relative priority being given to devolved benefits appears to be quite far down the list. I think that what would be helpful on an on-going basis is for perhaps a regular update of any delays that might impact on the further devolved benefits that are being rolled out in due course. If the cabinet secretary was able to keep us regularly furnished with the impact of those delays, I think that that would be helpful. The information system, just to clarify, is it still your intention that, eventually, once those issues are resolved, that is a system that you would want to use? Are those contingency measures short-term or are they developing an alternative system that would be potentially used in the longer term? That is very much a contingency for the short term. We do not know at present how short-term that will be, because we are waiting to see when the access to the system will take place. I do not have a definitive answer as to how long that will be for, but it is certainly very much our intention to progress to that in the long term. As I said earlier, it is far more effective and it is far better for the client advisors to be able to access that information and therefore, obviously, for those who are phoning the helpline, so that they can get that information as timely as possible. Once those issues are resolved and there is access to the information system, would that access roll forward for the other benefits or would it need to be a whole set of other changes to the information system? One of the challenges is that we are continuously having to look at what new information that we require for every benefit. Once we have access to the system, then we have access. The agency has access to the system, and that will help on an on-going basis with the calls. That does not mean that there will not be other challenges when we are moving towards other payments that we will require assistance from the DWP to be able to link into other parts of their system. Will that be helpful for you to let us know once that access is gained and those issues are resolved? Just looking forward to the future relationship, I am aware that the Scottish Fiscal Commission wrote to the committee that they wanted to have a formal agreement with the DWP as they do with HMRC. I think that there was a support for that. I do not know whether that would have helped to resolve any of those issues, possibly not, but is that something that you feel is still important? What does the DWP think of that? Have they responded? Would it help to avoid those things happening in the future, or do you think that it would make any difference at all? It would not have helped with that issue, because that particular issue is a delay to a DWP IT system change, which is solely to do with DWP under IT systems. I have a great deal of sympathy with what the Scottish Fiscal Commission has said when it was relating the need for it to have access to information. I note that it has had that and seemed to have a good working relationship with HMRC, for example. I have written to the Secretary of State on that issue, giving my support to the Fiscal Commission. I have yet to receive a reply to that letter that was only done on 19 September. However, it is important that a memorandum of understanding is in place with the DWP to allow the Fiscal Commission to be able to access the information that it needs, which will also have implications to what it advises to Government and state to Government about the flow of information and the technical detail. That is helpful, thank you. Thank you, Mark Griffin. Thank you, convener. Good morning, Cabinet Secretary. I have a few questions that cover a couple of different areas. First, I will continue the discussion that we have been having, and I need to talk about the burden on the social security agency in relation to increased work as a result of the failure of the DWP to give access to that information system. Is that going to cause any difficulty for applicants? The way that I have seen it and correct me if I am wrong is that if you had access to that DWP system, you would be able to check an applicant's entitlement automatically. Is that going to require an applicant to give proof of an entitlement during that process and cause them an extra burden? No, I can assure the committee that there will be no difference to what an applicant sees or has an experience of during that process. That is purely what happens behind the scenes when we are looking at an application. The applicant will have the same assistance, the same support and the same reassurance that they would get from the agency, whether that had happened or not. The very much basis of the contingency that we have in place was very much from that point of view that what we will put in place will mean that the applicant will have the same experience that they would have. Is it though you will be able to check their eligibility without them having to provide any extra information? There will be no difference. That is great. The next question that I have was just more of a technical question on the order specifically around the multiple pregnancy supplement. I was just looking for a bit of reassurance that the line and the order is that supplement is the value to the grant in respect of only one of the children born or to be born. I was just looking for an assurance that the multiple pregnancy supplement would cover not just a twin birth but a triplet birth or anything beyond that. There would be a £300 supplement for every additional child who is born. Yes, that is my understanding as well. That is great. Thank you very much for that as well. While other questions were around the timing of the introductions of the payment, are you able to set out why the pregnancy and baby payment is going to be made at the point that you set out but the early learning payment and the school age payment are being deferred until summer next year? Certainly. That is part of, as the committee is aware, our first priority around social security is the safe and secure transition and the staged implementation of what we do. It is what we did for carers allowance supplement when we batched payments and for this, the decision has been taken that we will move forward with one payment and then we will move forward with the second and third payments. The reason for that is that although we are now paying the carers allowance supplement and so the agency is very much up and running and experiencing calls and assisting, this is entirely different because it is the first application-based process, it is a different payment system. As with all the aspects that we will do, we will do this in a staged and managed process to ensure that the applicants get the best possible experience as we go through this. There is always the wish to do things faster and to try to ensure that the payments are in as quickly as possible. I will not do that at the jeopardy of our very determined policy of doing things in a staged implementation manner so that we can learn lessons along the way, particularly when we are doing things that are new for the first time. The final question was about uptake, just to ask what the Government is going to be doing around boosting uptake of the payment, particularly after the discussion and debate that we had in the chamber on Tuesday around those hard-to-reach groups in Black and Minority ethnic communities in particular. There are a number of methods that we are going to have to take and they will be different for the different payments that the agency will be looking at. When we are looking at best start grant in particular, we are very mindful of what has already happened and the processes that are already in place to ensure that expectant mothers, for example, are encouraged to take up their entitlements. That is why there has been a great deal of work, for example, with the health services, particularly Midwifery and Health Visiting, family and earth partnerships, to ensure that the health visiting pathway has information around best start grant and to ensure that there is a link with the financial health check that is part of the process. On the difficult to reach groups that you mentioned, that is one of the reasons why, when we are going forward with the best start grant, we are also linking with a lot of different agencies and stakeholders to make sure that they are fully up-to-date with what is going on, so that they can pass that information out. We are also looking at a communication strategy that will ensure that we are getting the information out to stakeholders and direct to individuals themselves. There is not one stream of work that will go on. There are roadshows that will take place, for example, just as we did for Carers Allow and Supplement. There will be the communication strategy that will take place as well, with a specific eye on how we deal with individuals who may not even know that they are eligible and may not even know that there is a payment out there that they are for and encourage people to come forward. We are very much looking at that. Obviously, there will be lessons to learn and I am more than happy to work with the committee as we go forward about the lessons that we will learn on the uptake, as we inevitably go on with this. Thank you, convener, and good morning and welcome. I think that I will carry on from where my colleague Mark Griffin left off there. We are told that the Scottish Fiscal Commission projects 58 per cent take-up off the best start grant by 2022. I appreciate that means-tested benefits tend to have a lower take-up rate and that this figure would be an increase on the take-up for the sure start grant, but it still means that 42 per cent of families are still missing out. I appreciate the steps that you have outlined to Mark Griffin, but will the Government have a really good look at that figure? If you feel that even that 58 per cent is not being met, are there actions that are being considered if it becomes apparent that take-up is not all that needs to be? As I have stated to Mark Griffin, I think that this will be a learning process and it is not one that we are ever going to say that we will get right at day one. We are determined to do everything that we can, but there will inevitably be lessons that we will learn around take-up. Obviously, the Fiscal Commission's numbers that they gave on take-up were lower than what the Scottish Government forecast had been. We had been forecasting a higher take-up for that and I think that that is very much based on the work that we know that will be done to encourage people to come forward to get those payments. However, it is very difficult to forecast take-up on a new benefit under a new system and that is why there is a difference between the Scottish Government and the Fiscal Commission forecasting for that. When it comes to the issue of uptake, anybody who is eligible for a payment that does not take it up is one too many, so we have to understand the reasons behind that and what we can do for that. As I say, it will be an iterative process and we are more than open to learning as we go on, because I would not be satisfied with those figures if that is what we have and we have continuously got to ensure that we are doing all that we can, particularly for the difficult to reach people who will not be coming forward in the first instance for those payments. Obviously, it is a new payment and it is being delivered by a new agency. Social Security Scotland has yet to develop a real presence and people have to become aware that that is where they need to go. It is not impossible that some people may think that this is something that they have to apply to the DWP for, so I would like to understand and the Scottish Fiscal Commission raised that when it was last month in its work projecting the cost. Is there something in place to ensure that if someone approaches or contacts the DWP to apply for best start grant that they are signposted to the right place, because the worst thing that could happen is that they go to the DWP and there is not the understanding there or the information and that person misses out for those reasons? Absolutely. One of the things that we have to recognise is that because we now have a system where we have the DWP paying still the vast majority of benefits in Scotland and Social Security Scotland only delivering 15 per cent at the very end, there will be individuals who are not quite sure where payments are paid. There is a great deal of work that goes on there with the communication that DWP would give out and that the agency also gives out about a reserve benefit that is DWP, so I will give the example of what happened for the carers allowance supplement before that went live. There were very detailed discussions about what would happen if you phoned up the DWP about the carers allowance supplement and what they would say and vice versa, so that work will happen with the best start grant and so on as well. The absolute determination is, in effect, no-one falls through the gap because it is not their responsibility to know what number to phone, but it is our responsibility to get the information out to them. Can I change on to something else slightly? Looking at schedule 2 part 1, 4 of the pregnancy and baby grant and the resident requirement, it is just really a clarification in terms of understanding what it actually says. It talks about the resident requirements referred to in power for one to see and is satisfied on a day, if on that day, and then obviously ordinarily resident in Scotland. Then it goes on in part 2 to list all the other elements that may be eligible, starting with a habitually resident in the European economic area or Switzerland. I just wanted to clarify what that means in terms of entitlement. Does it mean that you are in Scotland at the time of birth, or does it mean that you have to be here for a period of time, or what does it actually mean? I will perhaps bring in one of my officials to go through the detail of some of the residency area, but I can explain that the background to this is to go back to initiaries with Alison Johnson about when no-one falls through the gaps. One of the concerns when we looked at residency as it was initially laid in some of the draft regulations was that there was the potential for someone to not be eligible for a sure start grant down in England and not be eligible up here because of residency requirements around having to be resident in Scotland. The reason that the changes have been made is to ensure that no-one falls through a gap and that, if they are here and that they are eligible, that is an easy process for them to go through. I do not know whether colleagues would want to add to that a little bit. The reasons that have found habitual residence in the European economic area or Switzerland is essentially the co-ordination arrangements that currently apply throughout the European economic area and Switzerland, whereby people who move as nationals of those countries to another country will have the same rights of access to social security in that other country while they are resident there. For most people, that condition actually works through the conditions of the passporting benefits. In most cases, people have to be in receipt of a passporting benefit. The specific provision here is referring to the extension for people who essentially are up to about 18 years old, who are not in receipt of passporting benefits but will qualify for virtue of age, and it is to ensure that that is compatible with the current arrangements. The passporting benefit is quite clear. If you are on a benefit, you are entitled to that. However, if somebody is passing through if they want to bet on holiday or whatever, I mean, when I first read that, it kind of almost sounded like if you happened to be in Scotland at the time you gave birth, you'd been titled. Is that not correct then? It's more than that. The person would have to establish that, for the time being, their ordinary residence was in Scotland, so Scotland would have to be the centre of their living arrangements at that time. An example might be someone who comes here to study and is going to be in Scotland for a period of time. They may still have some form of habitual residence in a different country that they intend to go back to, but at the time they are residing here, and that is more than simply being here on a day, then they would qualify on the same basis as somebody who was habitually resident in Scotland. Thank you. On a positive note, to you and your officers, I thank you for the changes that you have made that came out in our session with you previously. They strengthen it and give greater protection, particularly for children who are very vulnerable and may be moving between different grandparents or parents. To be positive, I have a moment to say thank you, and I think that that is really helpful in strengthening the regulations. Cabinet Secretary, I wonder if you wish to respond to that or otherwise. I'm always happy to receive thanks from Jeremy Balfour at any point. Excellent. I'm glad to see that there's a love in here this morning. Can I just ask a little bit more about uptake? The committee visited the Scottish Social Security Agency on Monday, and it had to do a couple of quite specific things for uptake of the carer supplement. The one was when they were writing out to people, they decided to write out using white envelopes, rather than brown envelopes, because a lot of people who would benefit from that saw a negative in a brown envelope. It would be a bill or something negative from an official organisation pursuing them for money, rather than trying to support them. Another thing that they had to do was reassure a lot of people on the telephone that that was not a scam. It was too good to be true. What's the catch? That can't possibly be right. We heard that when we were there, so I don't underestimate the challenges when best start rolls out in terms of the uptake that's required. What a lot of us—I think that it came up in the debate quite strongly as well—was what we couldn't get our head around was the relatively low uptake of the previous sure start grant on the basis that we pretty much know when people are expecting a baby, you know. There's engagement with the mid-wise, with maternity fit services, with the NHS, there's anti-natal classes, there's a whole suite of statutory organisations to kick in and the DWP pretty much knows those individuals who would have qualifying passported benefits to dictate access or entitlement to that. So, sitting here as a politician—not someone who has to deliver it on the ground, I have to say—for the life of me, I can't see why those dots are not joined together better, because if we know who's having a child, we know the benefits that would make them qualify for it, and we know where they stay. Why on earth are they not going to rattle at their door to say, excuse me, you're qualifying for this, why haven't you applied for this, some kind of soft automatic enrolment? Now, that all sounds quite naive and it's much more difficult, I'm sure, in terms of one agency talking to another agency and whose responsibility it is on the ground, but given what I was saying about the carer supplement and having to use white envelopes and persuading people that this is not a scam, there is a challenge to reach hard-to-reach groups, but we know pretty much—there are some we don't know pretty much where they are and we know who qualifies, so what assurances can you give? There's a much more coordinated approach, or there will be a much more coordinated approach on the ground to uptake than there was under the previous scheme? One of the main differences is that the DWP doesn't go out and promote and encourage uptake of the benefit and the payments, and I think that the clear difference to what we'll be doing is ensuring that the work, for example, is to say that we're doing with health visitors, with the NHS, ensures that we are going out and ensuring that we are promoting the uptake of this. It also does link into on-going work, in some ways, to what I'm doing in my remit, for example, on the financial health check guarantee, which will ensure that low-income families will be receiving personalised advice on income maximisation, and the other programme on health and wealthier children, which supports pregnant women and their families at risk of experiencing poverty to create referral pathways between the NHS and money in welfare advice services. The work that the agency is doing to go out there and promote this and the work that's on going within government to ensure that we are doing all we can to provide those financial health checks to low-income families will ensure that we have a better uptake than DWP. Whether it's better enough is something that time will tell, and as I said, if there's one person out there that's not receiving the benefit that could be, then that's obviously a concern that we need to challenge ourselves about what more we can do. It would be quite good to get more information of the organisations on the ground, whether it's midwife at the 24-week pregnancy check, or whether it's anti-natal classes or whatever. It would be quite good not for today, obviously, but just to get an overview of that provision on the ground to mop up access. Finally, in relation to—I do say it again because it was a real strong theme that came through from our visit—people do think that things are too good to be true sometimes. What public awareness nationally, as well as locally, do you think that the Scottish Government can consider just to notify and inform not just expectant mothers, but there's a whole range of benefits going to be rolled out by the Scottish Social Security Agency just to let people know that these entitlements are being rolled out, that it's not a scam, that it's not too good to be true, and that this is your entitlement, that it's not a handout to drive up. That would drive up across the board the uptake of not just this but other entitlements. I think that you're absolutely right to point out the fact that there's a challenge in the fact that the agency is new, so you're receiving a letter from an agency that you've perhaps never heard of offering you money, saying that it's going into your bank account. I was in our Glasgow offices yesterday speaking to some of the staff who had been working on the very initial conversations about the carers allowance supplement and the idea about is this real, is it a scam, is this letter legit, was something that comes through. So there is an obligation on us to raise the awareness that the agency is in place, and therefore raise the awareness of the different benefits. As I say, I'll go back to give an example of what we did for the carers allowance supplement was that it was around the road shows, there was adverts in local papers, there was in effect adverts taken out in local radio stations and so on as well to improve that knowledge and a lot of work done with trusted organisations because many people at this point will go to a trusted organisation to check out what's going on and will believe that over a new agency that they haven't heard of before. Now this is something that will develop over time but the work that we did with CAS is the type of work that we're looking at or the agency is looking to do for best start grant for example and that's why I said earlier on there will be a full communication strategy that links to the best start grant when it's being paid to ensure that we're getting that publicity for what's going on. I just wanted to ask the cabinet secretary about potential recovery of the best start grant. Most of the people who will get the entitlement will be through a qualifying benefit. If there is any error in the part of the claimant or perhaps the DWP in giving someone or not finding them about the entitlement to the qualifying benefit which is then reversed will the Scottish Government seek to recover payment of the best start grant? Well it depends on the circumstances of the individual case but the agency would need to in effect understand why DWP has decided that a person was that they thought was eligible is no longer eligible and why that reserved benefit wasn't properly awarded. The agency will look at that on a case-by-case basis but then that goes back to how we're looking at any case like this and it's done with dignity and respect. It's done on the basis of trust and the fact that it's not up to in effect the claimant to prove that they were doing nothing wrong because we believe that somebody is innocent unless there has been something specific that they have carried out to commit a fraud, for example. We're not doing this on the basis of trying to catch anyone out or not being sympathetic to the position that an individual is in so I can't give a yes or no categorical answer because it will depend on a particular case. However, when the agency is looking at any aspect to do with this, it will very much look at what happened in that individual case with a degree of sympathy and of understanding about that individual case. That's the reassurance that I would give on the work that they are doing on all areas around this. It will not be done in a way that assumes that a person has done something wrong and that, therefore, we need to claw back money. There have been no other questions. We will now move from agenda item 2 to agenda item 3 and I can invite Ms Summerwell to move the following motion that we have just debated. That is S5M-14101. The question is, therefore, that the Social Security Committee recommends that the early years assistance best start grant Scotland regulation 20 and draft will be approved. Is the committee content to recommend approval of that instrument? We will suspend briefly before we move to agenda item 4. Welcome back everyone. We have now moved to agenda item 4, which is still subordinate legislation, and the committee will take evidence in the following regulation subject to affirmative procedure. They are the first tier tribunal for Scotland allocation of functions to the social security chamber regulations 2018 and the first tier tribunal for Scotland chamber's amendment regulations 2018. We will also be looking at the following regulation subject to negative procedure, those being the first tier tribunal for Scotland social security chamber procedure regulations 2018, the upper tribunal for Scotland social security rules of procedure regulations 2018, the social security appeals expenses and allowance to Scotland regulations 2018, the Scottish Tribunal's eligibility for appointment amendments regulations 2018. Can I welcome back the cabinet secretary? Good morning, still. And also your officials who are Naeem Bhattie, head of complaints, redeterminations and appeals policy, Colin Brown solicitor, and Susan Robb solicitor, both Scottish Government. The Delegated Powers and Legislative Reform Committee considered these instruments at its meeting earlier this week. Its report was circulated to members on Tuesday. The DPLR committee has drawn two of the tribunal instruments to the attention of the Parliament. One has been withdrawn. The first tier tribunal for Scotland social security chambers and upper tribunal for Scotland composition regulations 2018. The DPLR committee has also drawn the first tier tribunal for Scotland social security chamber procedure regulations 2018 to the Parliament due to a lack of clarity and errors. On that particular regulation, the Scottish Government has committed to laying an amending instrument to correct those errors. That instrument is subject to the negative procedure. Can I invite the cabinet secretary to make an opening statement after which we will move to questions across the whole range of statutory instruments before us this morning, cabinet secretary? In line with our principles of dignity, fairness and respect, we have always been clear that people will have a right to challenge decisions made by Social Security Scotland if they believe that it is not made the right one. In order to realise that right and ensure appeals are heard by an independent organisation, we are creating a new chamber in the Scottish Tribunals so that people have access to justice in line with our wider approach. The six sets of regulations that the committee are considering today are required to establish a new chamber in the first tier and make provision for upper tribunal for Scotland in time for when we start to deliver the best start grant. Members will be aware, as the convener has noted, that the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee drew attention to one draft instrument on Tuesday in particular. I have withdrawn that instrument and will really revise that version shortly. That is why it is no longer on the agenda today. I want to emphasise that our aim is to create a chamber that will be easy for people to access and one that deals with appeals quickly, while also ensuring that the dignity and respect of individuals at the heart of the social security system. As the committee is aware, we consulted on the draft regulations and the final regulations that have been laid as a result of balancing the views of all those who responded while ensuring that what is proposed does not lead to operational or other difficulties. I am pleased that there has been broad support for the proposals and want to put on record my appreciation to all who responded to the consultation, including the committee for its contribution earlier this year. I also wish to thank and acknowledge the support provided by the members of the judicial reference group whose advice and guidance has been invaluable through this process. The Scottish Government report that was published on 13 September alongside the regulations provides a detailed response to the consultation findings. It explains where the draft regulations have been revised to take account of the views expressed and where there was scope for change to ensure that the dignity and respect agenda is fully given effect to or more generally to leave the foundations of an effective chamber. You may recall that when the consultation on the draft regulations was launched, the Social Security Scotland Bill was still undergoing its parliamentary process. As such, some of the provisions in the draft regulations have, of course, been updated to reflect the changes that are now in the 2018 act. That includes reference to the Scottish social security charter, the agency's role in supporting individuals who wish to exercise their right to appeal, creation of new appeal rights for challenging process decisions, the duty to promote uptake and inclusive communication among other changes, and I will be happy to take questions from members. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. I am conscious that there are two affirmative instruments before us in a range of negative ones, so there will be a range of questions for you this morning. Can I go to the first question from Jeremy Balfour? Thank you, cabinet secretary. I have four questions, two kind of overriding ones and two kind of specific ones. Just on a very practical level, and this may be for to take away or just for one of your officials to answer. At present, and I should probably just remind members that I used to be a member for tribunal service myself, at present, because they all come from DWP, you can have different appeals being heard on different days, so you could have a pit one, you could have an employment one, obviously now with this change. Is there any relationship going to continue so that different cases can be heard within the same day, or will we end up simply having Scottish cases or Scottish agency cases being heard in one time and other cases heard on another day? I think that I might have to get back to the member on that point, unless officials would like to come in at that stage. There will be two different systems, so the tribunal system that we are setting up at the moment is obviously for the devolved benefits and the reserved system is separate to that, so it would be difficult to see how that could be on the same day necessarily, but I will get back to the member if there is any further update on that. The second issue is in regard to expenses paid to those who sit on tribunals. At present, the lawyer, doctor and disabled member are paid different amounts. Is that going to continue, or will there be one single pay for all three individuals? Currently, as you know, Mr Balfour, different members are paid different depending on their experiences. The legal members are paid different, the medical members are paid different and the lame members are paid different. In terms of trying to harmonise that pay, that is a different cost to that. Obviously, we want to make sure that people are paid appropriately for giving up their time to be on the tribunal system as such, and that will be set out in due course. It always seems to me slightly strange that three individuals turn up to do exactly the same piece of work and get paid three different amounts, but perhaps in due course you can come back to me on that. The third question, and I may have misunderstood this, so if I have, I apologise. Where does somebody either make their application for a hearing late or they do not turn up and do something and they appeal that? My understanding is that the chairman of the tribunal hears that case and decides whether the appeal should be heard or not. For my reading of the regulations, that decision is then made and then another date is set for the claimant to then come back and have that hearing heard by the full tribunal. I just wondered in regard to the claimant in particular not having to come twice, but also in regard to the cost of it. Can that occur on one occasion? It should be two hearings but heard on the same day. In terms of, as you know, Mr Balfour, when an appellant does not turn up to the tribunal, they can either inform the tribunal beforehand and the tribunal can decide either to proceed with that case or it can basically adjourn that case to allow the appellant and any representative to come to a future hearing. It is up to the chamber president or the legal member in that instance to make the decision whether they have enough information in front of them in the paperwork to make a decision or if they want to hear directly from the appellants. As you know, one of the changes that we have taken forward in the procedural rules is to provide for paper-based hearings. In line with the Dignity and Respect agenda, if an individual does not need to attend to a tribunal, it is right that they should not be inconvenienced to come to a tribunal if the decision cannot be made on the papers that are there. However, as I said, it is up to the legal member to decide whether they want to postpone that or whether they want to go ahead and make a decision. If they make a decision, the individual then does have a right to ask for the information for that decision to be set aside, to ask for a review of that decision. This is in regard to the set-aside. If an individual makes a call to have that set-aside and that comes to a tribunal, the tribunal judge says, I will set that aside. Will the hearing then be heard on the same day, or does the claimant have to come back a second time once the set-aside has been decided? In terms of the set-aside, it depends on whether there is a process for scheduling of the hearings. That is down to Scottish Courts and Tribunal Services to schedule hearings to make sure that the appropriate members are available. As you know, you are being a former tribunal member. Tribunals have a number of hearings to consider in their daytime, so that is an operational matter for Scottish Courts and Tribunal Services to see how and when quickly they can reschedule a hearing. I have a final question, and I appreciate that you have withdrawn the regulations. In regard to the make-up of the tribunal, there seems to be some scope to have either two-member tribunals or three-member tribunals. Is it the thinking behind this that the tribunals will have only two members rather than three, or will the continued practice of having three members continue? My understanding is that that is for the chamber president and just had that confirmed as well. That is obviously part of the aspect that we have withdrawn from today, as well, due to some of the suggestions by the other committee. We are happy to take that back and receive further questions if you have any points that you might want to raise about that in due course. Are there any other questions? Michelle Ballantyne? Thank you. Just following up on how tribunals were delivered, one of the things that I have had conversations with my local CAB office is around where tribunals were cancelled in a rural area, and quite often they do not happen. There is quite a bit of concern around that. I wondered what your feeling is, what your plans are around the location of tribunals and how you ensure, particularly in rural areas, that vulnerable people who are appealing, who are probably already in trouble anyway, are able to access them? That seems to be a bit of an issue. I think that it is a particular importance when we are looking at all aspects of what we are doing within social security is to ensure that we take account of where people are living and the challenges within that. It is obviously a challenge in particular rural areas. It is an operational matter, not for myself and politicians to be involved in why things are cancelled and why not. However, I take your point very seriously around the impact that that will have on people and the distress and difficulty that that will give. We are certainly mindful of that, and we always need to bear in mind when we are looking at all those aspects of how they are delivered in rural areas. In terms of the policy and the creation of the tribunal, I could not find anything that really gives any indication of what the expectations around it are. Do you expect that to be encapsulated in the charter? How can we have some reassurance in terms of the creation of the tribunals that there is an expectation that they will go out to different places and that there will be the capacity there that they will not end up centralised in urban areas and people expected to travel to them? I could not find anything in here that really gave me any reassurance around that. It is probably not something that is for the charter necessarily, but the Government is not writing the charter, so we will see what comes from the process that is being developed for that. Although it is not in the charter, it is something that needs to be carefully considered. I suppose that the reassurance that I would give is that there can be travel to different locations for tribunals. It is not something that has to be centralised or should be centralised. The venue that is chosen should be close to the appellant. Obviously, the operational matters are not for myself to get into, but the reassurance would very much be given that those things are taken into account and that a venue is chosen and that it is close. I stress that there is no reason for those things to be centralised, no wish for those things to be centralised, because the process has to be open and available to everyone, regardless of where they are working and living in Scotland. I very much take the point on board about the challenges of living in rural, remote or island communities that are important in that area. The SPICE suggests that there are around 12,000 Scottish appeals to tribunal every year from PIP claimants. I think that that figure might have been even higher without the system of mandatory reconsideration. I appreciate that the Scottish Government says that it wants to get the decision right every time—first time—and that is a laudable aim, but I just like to understand that about 60 per cent of PIP appeals have been successful at tribunal, which indicates that there is something fairly wrong with the decision-making in the first place. I just like to understand what the Scottish Government intends to do to bring down that figure markedly. I think that, in essence, what that level of appeals success shows is that the current system is broken, because we simply should not begin into a case where the appeals success rate is anywhere near that high. That demonstrates that there is a fault somewhere in the system. That goes very much down to the points that we discussed during my statement and what my predecessor has already set out to the committee about how we want to move forward about getting the right information in the right way at the earliest opportunity. That is very much about making sure that the initial decision has been completed with the right information and done in a way in which there are not two sides trying to catch each other out, whether it is done in a supportive manner in which the agency is encouraging the individual who is applying to do so to get all the information that is required for the decision to be right. Of course, there will be times when the individual does not think that that initial determination has been correct and that they are, of course, under this system, our new system, entitled to a redetermination under a completely different team that made the initial decision. I met some of the members of that team yesterday in Glasgow to discuss the workings of that team. That is a further step, which is different to the current system, which will again be intended to bring down the numbers that will go to appeal. The appeal process still has to be there. As I said in my opening statement, there will be people who still wish to challenge those determinations, but I am confident that we will see a marked decrease because we are not importing the current system and putting it through our new tribunals process. We have a new system that will go through the tribunals process, which is very much based on a different premise to what is going on currently. Can I ask the cabinet secretary whether he is content that there is the capacity for where appeals are at simply unavoidable? Having met that team yesterday, he is content that the capacity exists to deal with them to measly. Both within the agency and in respect to the redetermination process, but also if it requires to go to an appeal, it requires to go to a tribunal, then the capacity is there to do so. I was pleased to hear the statement of the other week that there can be recordings of face-to-face assessments in the process. I hate to say this, but my reality constituency cases were quite frankly my constituency. What has been assessed in relation to them, there is no relation to what happened on the day of the assessment. The audio recording could be quite a powerful tool in making sure that the accuracy of the assessment is much more rigorous. Let us put it that way at the first time of asking. I am just wondering what the thought was behind that audio recording and whether you think that, cabinet secretary, that will help get decisions right at the first time of asking also? I think that it certainly will have an impact. Like many members, including the convener, I have had constituency cases where the individual has said that they just weren't asked those questions and they certainly didn't give those answers during a process. To be able to have any faith in the system, people need to have a much better faith in what happens when they are in a face-to-face assessment. As I said to Alison Johnstone, we would hope that the number of face-to-face assessments will dramatically decrease from what is on at the moment. However, if it is required, then people need to have faith in what happens in that room. It is also just a recognition of the fact that they will want to have that information to hand and to be able to go through that afterwards for their own reassurance. That is why it is very important for people to be able to have that audio recording and for that to be made available to an appeal if that is required at a later date. That, hopefully, gives a great deal of assurance to the person going through that process that, again, it is not there to catch them out, that this is a system that is there to support them. There is full transparency around what goes on in that and the decision-making process. That is helpful. I should point out that the claimant would have to give permission for that recording to be conducted. I assume that no judgment would be made either way if the claimant did not want that audio recording to be made. However, I am just wondering on data sharing. There is a UK appeal system that will run side by side by the new Scottish one, because the ESA support group, for example, will still be under UK rules in terms of data protection and data sharing. I am assuming that if the claimant did not wish any of that to be passed, it would not be passed to the individuals doing the appeals in relation to ESA. What would happen to that data? Would it stay safely with the Scottish tribunal system? On your first point, I can reassure you that the audio recording is there for the benefit of the claimant. If they do not wish that to happen, however, we will have to ensure that those wishes can be respected. Of course, there would not be a judgment about why somebody would or would not wish to participate in that. It is there to protect them, and it has been warmly welcomed by stakeholders and by the individuals that I have spoken to. However, if they do not want to take part in that, we need to ensure that our system is flexible enough for that. In relation to the other aspect around data sharing, there are two separate systems that are running both the agency being separate from DWP and the tribunals for devolved benefits being separate from the reserved benefits tribunal. When it comes to the aspect around data sharing, I would be happy to provide further clarification on that, if you wish, in due course. That would be helpful, which is a final question. I know that Mark Ruskell is supposed to follow up on some of that in a second, but it is a final question. Jeremy Balfour raised an interesting point. Of course, it is not one within the control of the Scottish Government in relation to having an ESA assessment and can they be on the same day or at the same time and make that as easy for claimants as possible? Of course, there are two different systems in relation to that, but I quite often have constituents telling me under the current where it is all the DWP at the moment that they are quite often providing the same information twice—one in relation to PIP, one in relation to ESA—and sometimes the information that they send goes missing once, twice, three times, then they get it in and they have to give it again for the ESA. There is pretty poor co-ordination at the moment, and that is within the one system from what I can see. Two separate systems now. Will there be any efforts made to—I do not even know where the opportunities are to be honest with you, cabinet secretary, but I just see where things currently sit. There is a lack of co-ordination, and we are moving to two discrete systems. Is there any opportunity at all to have some form of co-ordination in relation to ESA assessments, one system and PIP assessments and another system, just in terms of some of that information that is generated? Certainly, in relation to the aspects that will be devolved to the Scottish Parliament, what we are obviously trying to do during this process is to ensure that we use information that is already available and ensure that we can access as much of that as possible so that the responsibility is more on the agency in effect rather than the individual to continuously provide information and in effect jump through hoops at different parts of the process. Can I assure the committee that this will be a seamless process in relation to the relationship with reserved benefits? Unfortunately, that is perhaps something outwith my gift to me. We will obviously move within what we do within the agency to ensure, as I said, that we have access to as much information that is already there rather than requiring the applicant to do something twice or three times. What happens for when they are applying for a reserved benefit is, unfortunately, something that is beyond our control, but it is an aspect that we are keen to encourage the DWP to look at about what more they can do to make a process easier for someone rather than making it more difficult. I think that that is helpful, because we can learn from each other, DWP can learn from the new Scottish social security agency experience and, potentially vice versa, but we will wait and see on that. Thank you for that, cabinet secretary, Mark Griffin. Thank you, convener. It was just a supplementary to the convener's questions around the audio recordings. I would like the convener to welcome that, but I was just wondering if it is possible for deaf BSL users that a video recording could be made to support them in any potential. I tried being okay, because, as you can imagine, an audio recording is not going to be of the greatest use to them. I will take that point on board. Obviously, when we are looking at our inclusive communications, when we are looking at how those policy initiatives will operate in practice, we then need to take that principle of openness and transparency and say, right, how does that work for different people and are there different requirements as they are going through that process. The details of that will still be developed over time. We are obviously some time away from having to deliver the assessment process ourselves, but those details about how that particularly affects an individual will be absolutely taken into account, and we will never leave anyone short of information or having a lack of transparency simply because of the required BSL translation or anything like that. That would completely fail in what we are trying to do overall about the agency's work. We are moving towards the end of our question. Does anyone else want a question if they could get my attention just now about Ron Michelle Ballantyne once in for another question? Just a tiny one. It is sort of on the back of what has been said before in terms of my concern about accessibility. Obviously, for the purpose of the regulations, it is very much in legal form, but for somebody who has been turned down and is wanting to appeal, I am just looking for a little bit of reassurance around the process in terms of the type of format that they would have to appeal. Obviously, many people are maybe not afaith with legal process anyway, and if there are a lot of very formalised forms, they find that quite difficult, and then there is the issue about getting somebody to support that. I wondered if the cabinet secretary could just give me some reassurance about the methodology of appeal for someone and what they are actually faced with in terms of the requirement of submitting documents, the type of forms that they might have to use and the conduct of the process of tribunal whilst appreciating that it has to have a legal format to it. How will you ensure that someone feels confident and able to go through that process without requiring the support of a lawyer? It is an important point about ensuring that a person is never put off or faces a barrier to the next stage in the process that they require to go through it. One of the aspects that the committee will be very aware that we have been doing is working a great deal in our communication about people's rights under the new system and whether that is eligibility, whether that is how to interact with the new agency and when it comes to it when they are in place how to appeal. One of the important aspects to bear in mind is that the agency following a redetermination will give that individual all the information that they require about how an appeal could be taken forward. That communication, as we do with all our communications, would be tested to make sure that it makes sense and can be easily understood by people going through the process, so we will look at what the agency puts out, we will look at that information and in many ways it is about encouraging people to take up their rights so that there is never a barrier to that. I suppose that the other aspect to bear in mind is that the agency will also forward the documents that are required so there is not a responsibility on the individual to have to collect information to ensure that their case is brought forward. The individual will receive all the information about how to appeal from the agency. If they wish to do that, the agency will be able to collect the information that was behind that decision and allow that process to go forward. It is about taking the responsibility and taking the pressure of the individual and ensuring that the agency has more of a role and therefore always being there if people have questions about not understanding the system. From that, are you anticipating that the design of the system is such that the individual should not need someone to do it for them and that they can potentially do it themselves and not need the direct support of someone if they so wish to do it? Yes, because I think that if we have to the point where people would require a lawyer, for example, that is a barrier to the system that we need to look at. We need to be very careful in everything that we are doing around this, that although we are getting into territory that yes is about a legal process, it is explained in a way that is easily understood and that an individual is encouraged to take up their rights should they wish to do so. Are there any other questions for the cabinet secretary? There have been no other questions. Can we move to agenda item 5? That is the consideration of two affirmative instruments, and I invite Ms Lamifold to move the first motion, which is S5M-14156. The question is therefore that the Social Security Committee recommends that the first to your tribunal for Scotland allocation of functions to the Social Security Chamber Regulations 2018 draft be approved. Is the committee content to recommend approval of this instrument? I invite Ms Lamifold to move the second motion, which is S5M-14157. The question is therefore that the Social Security Committee recommends that the first to your tribunal for Scotland Chamber's amendment regulation 2018 draft be approved. Is the committee content to recommend approval of this instrument? We therefore now move to agenda item 6, which is the consideration of four negative instruments. I will read through all four of them now, and I will ask for the committee's permission just to note those. Those are the first to your tribunal for Scotland Social Security Chamber Procedure Regulations 2018, the upper tribunal for Scotland Social Security Rules of Procedure Regulations 2018, the social security appeals expenses and allowance to Scotland Regulations 2018 and the Scottish Tribunals eligibility for appointment amendment regulations 2018. Do you agree simply just to note those? Thank you. That ends agenda item 6. I congratulate the cabinet secretary for her attendance this morning and both sets of officials we've had with her this morning. We now move to agenda item 7, which is pre-budget scrutiny, which I previously agreed to take in private.