Social Security (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill - your views

One Parent Families Scotland (OPFS) is the only third sector organisation working exclusively with single parent families across Scotland. Our vision is of a Scotland in which single parents and their children are valued and treated equally and fairly. We work with and for single parent families, providing support services that enable them to achieve their potential and create lasting solutions to the poverty and barriers they face.

OPFS campaigns with parents to make their voices heard to change the systems, policies and attitudes that cause child poverty. OPFS provides life-changing services to single parents and children through specialist crisis interventions, single parent tailored benefits and money advice, family support and health & wellbeing support. We aim to support single parents to overcome the barriers to a decent standard of living, help achieve family wellbeing and give their children the best start in life.

OPFS would welcome the creation of the Scottish Child Payment as a stand-alone payment rather than the existing top up provision. The Scottish Child Payment has been a vital lifeline to many single parents during the cost of living crisis. The increase in food and fuel costs have adversely affected single parents especially young parents who have a reduced amount of Universal Credit due to the Young Parent Penalty. The level of payment has helped reduce child poverty and provided a degree of mitigation of UK benefit cuts which has supported parents in Scotland.
This additional flexibility would allow the Scottish Government to make the Scottish Child Payment responsive to changes to UK benefit changes, widen the eligibility and align the payment with other Social Security Scotland benefits. It would also give the Scottish Government greater control to mitigate against restrictions on UK benefit for example the two child rule . If the Scottish government no longer used the ‘top-up’ option to make payments of SCP it would have greater control over who was entitled to a payment. For example, students who are single parents may lose entitlement to UC because of the student loan and so are no longer be eligible for the SCP
Moreover, if the Westminster government make changes to eligibility criteria - this will have a subsequent impact on the number of families who can claim the SCP.
OPFS Policy Impact Monitoring Tool, which collects evidence from our local services and national freephone helpline, has highlighted cases of single parents losing UC because of the way their wage payment cycle affects their monthly income. This then impacts their SCP eligibility.
We would also recommend that the Scottish Government expand eligibility to include families with children who are in receipt of Carer Benefits, such as Carer’s Allowance/Carer Support Payment.
Carers often face significant experience of poverty with the poverty rate for carers remaining higher for carers than those without a caring role– 29% compared with 20% . Moreover the poverty rate for those in receipt of Carer’s Allowance sits at 34% . Although some carers will be entitled through other qualifying benefits, opening up eligibility to SCP to unpaid carers would contribute to reducing child poverty. OPFS also supports the proposal to create a ‘Care Leaver Payment’.
Having the Scottish Child Payment as a standalone benefit will offer greater flexibility around entitlement and facilitate an increase take up of SCP. Around 77% of eligible families are getting Scottish child payment. This figure only covers the families that claim a qualifying benefit, and we know there are many barriers to claiming these qualifying benefits. With more devolved responsibility take-up could be improved by introducing automation. For example, Scottish child payment could become a qualifying benefit for other low income benefits that are provided by both Social Security Scotland and local authorities.

While One Parent Families Scotland agrees with the proposal to repeal the measures put in place during the Covid -19 emergency, we would support the main measures being incorporated into the existing process for late applications to all devolved benefits as there are still a number of Covid cases and ongoing related condition for example Long Covid.

Allowing requests for redetermination and applications for appeal to be made more than a year late in exceptional circumstances - OPFS welcomes this proposal. We would also request that the provision relating to re-determinations out with one year should be mirrored in respect to the initial application for Adult Disability Payment. We support allowing requests for redetermination to be withdrawn and clarifying that Ministers are required to complete a redetermination even if they have missed the deadline for doing so. 
We support allowing Social Security Scotland to offer a better award to a claimant who has lodged an appeal. If accepted, this would end the appeal. This is known as a ‘lapsed appeal’.

Requests for redetermination and applications for appeal to be made more than a year late in exceptional circumstances should be allowed.
We welcome this proposal as it will bring conformity to the appeal process across both devolved and DWP benefits. However we would suggest that the interpretation of "exceptional circumstances” needs to be addressed and clear guidance will be needed regarding the decision making and appeal process.
We welcome this proposal. We would also request that the provision relating to re-determinations out with one year should be mirrored in respect to the initial application for Adult Disability Payment.

Allowing requests for redetermination to be withdrawn and clarifying that Ministers are required to complete a redetermination even if they have missed the deadline for doing so is welcome. We would suggest that there needs to be clear guidance for decision makers . In order for individuals and their representatives to be able to comprehend what can be often complex decisions, we would suggest consulting advice providers and users regarding the notification process. Clarity and conformity in any decision making must be ensured in order that fairness be ensure .

Allowing Social Security Scotland to offer a better award to a claimant who has lodged an appeal and if accepted, this would end the appeal is positive. We welcome the proposed changes to the process of accepting lapsed appeal. The proposed changes will ensure that individuals will be protected and will not lose out on an award because of circumstances that they could not prevent. This will ensure that individuals who are often vulnerable and their representatives are treated with dignity and respect . We would suggest that the return period for re-determinations should be in line with the return period for initial applications.

In some circumstances, making an individual liable for overpayments due to actions of their representative is worrying. The Explanatory note explains that “an error will be treated as an individual’s fault where it is their representative who has caused or contributed to that error or been provided with information which would have alerted a reasonable person to the error. However, the individual will not be liable where the individual’s representative used the assistance for a purpose that was in breach of their duty to the individual.”
We believe any overpayment which is caused by error and not due to wilfully giving false information should not be reclaimed. What is considered "reasonable" is too widely open to interpretation and could cause undue hardship to both the individual and their representative.

There is also a proposal to make ‘ a representative (eg an appointee) liable for overpayments that result from their own actions, if they, rather than the individual they represent, benefited from the funds. For example, if an individual’s representative gave false information which led to the overpayment being made and used that assistance for the benefit of the individual, the individual would be liable. If however, the representative used the assistance for their own benefit, then the representative would be liable instead.’
As above it is unreasonable to reclaim an overpayment due to genuine error and is open to wide mis-interpretation. Due to the vulnerability of individuals the stress and anxiety the reclaiming investigation and overpayments process can have an extremely detrimental effect on their health and wellbeing. Any overpayment reclaim should only be done where it is clearly proved to be as a result of fraudulent claim. The financial burden that reclaiming due to error may also prevent people from acting as a representative and could therefore have a detrimental effect on individuals who are in need of representation.
We welcome the proposal to introduce review and appeals against the decision that a person is liable to repay an overpayment and see this as an essential requirement. While we do not support the reclaim of overpayments due to error we would suggest that any reclaim decision be considered taking the level of amount and the financial ability to repay into account.
In situations where the individual has died we do not agree that overpayments should be taken from any estate. When the individual dies there are often considerable costs around funerals etc for the representative and it would be unreasonable to reduce any estate which may be needed to pay for essential costs.

One Parent Families Scotland support this proposal as it will safeguard and protect the individual for being exploited by their representative.

We would caution against the suspension of benefit unless a considerable time has lapsed as there could be a number of reasons why the information cannot be provided. The suspension of benefit could cause undue hardship to the individual and their representative due to circumstances out with their control. This would go against the principal of dignity and respect.

We would support these proposals. The Bill will result in most social security regulations being referred to the Scottish Commission on Social Security (SCoSS) for scrutiny, including regulations previously not included such as best start foods - the model of which OPFS has concerns (use of card payment rather than cash). However, the Bill introduces new provisions where the regulations have excluded scrutiny – care experience assistance (s.2 introducing s93A(1)), compensation recovery (s.17 of the Bill introducing s.94A to 94W) and information for audit (s.16 of the Bill introducing s87B(5)). We believe all should be subject to statutory scrutiny by SCoSS.

If the eligibility of Scottish Child Payment was widened this would allow more single parents to provide greater financial security for their families. A move away from relying on the qualification linked to reserved benefits would have a significant impact for example on single parents who are affected by the two-child rule may not currently qualify for Universal Credit for example and therefore do not qualify for SCP. Single parents affected by the benefit cap as another example. If family does not qualify for SCP because of Westminster regulations this is an injustice. Likewise, if the entitlement were to include Housing Benefit and Council Tax Reduction as a qualifying benefit this would allow single parents who work and are just above the qualifying level of Universal Credit to still receive the SCP to help them cope with the current financial crisis.