Analysis: When it comes to social security, ministers need to prove Scotland can do things differently

As ever, there were winners and losers in the cabinet reshuffle. There were big promotions for Humza Yousaf, who went from Minister for Transport and the Islands to Cabinet Secretary for Justice,  and Aileen Campbell, promoted from Minister for Public Health and Sport to become Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Local Government.

But while there were a couple of eye-grabbing moves – notably the new SNP depute leader, Keith Brown, being bumped from cabinet – Jeane Freeman’s promotion to health secretary was probably the most widely anticipated move in Nicola Sturgeon’s announcement.

Freeman had been applauded across the chamber when she navigated what she called “the biggest shift of powers to the Scottish Government in over a decade” through the Scottish Parliament.

With its roots in the Smith Commission – or in ‘the Vow’, if you prefer – the devolution of 11 new benefits to Scotland, including Carer’s Allowance, Disability Living Allowance, Personal Independent Payments and Funeral Payments, represented a new chapter in the history of the parliament.

The shift, brought by the Scotland Act 2016, meant that 15 per cent of the UK’s social security spend would be devolved to the Scottish Government, with the first part of the £3.3bn-worth of benefits – paid to almost 1.5 million Scots – handed to the Scottish Parliament, and with the full transfer by the end of this parliament.

That means that by 2021, the Scottish Government will be making more payments per week than it is currently making per year.

The successful, orderly devolution of new welfare powers was of critical importance to both the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament. Firstly, in ensuring that some of the most vulnerable in society receive the support they need, and secondly, in proving to the public that decision makers in Holyrood and Bute House can be trusted with the welfare safety net.

As Freeman put it in an exclusive interview with Holyrood in April: “I guess what I was conscious of at the very start was two things: one is that I’ve learned over the years that if you want to understand a problem and you want to fix it, you need to involve the people who know it best, the users of the service, and that no matter how clever you think you are, you’re not going to get that right without them.

“And secondly, there was, and is, a huge amount of distrust by people about the current UK welfare system.

“Some of it is well founded, some of it perception, but it’s there, and I needed to find ways to involve people so that they could begin to give us the benefit of the doubt.”

Clearly, Freeman is not alone in identifying growing concern over the direction of UK welfare policy. And even in circumstances in which welfare advisory organisations backed changes to the system in principle – for example, in the creation of Universal Credit – serious questions have been raised over the manner of implementation.

The Universal Credit helpline was beset by problems since its launch, with specialist advisers describing an opaque, unwieldy system, seemingly set up to work against them. Meanwhile, until the turn of the year, anyone calling the 0345 number from a mobile phone faced charges of 55p a minute.

Under the system, direct deductions from benefits, made to cover debts such as rent arrears, can be as high as 40 per cent. The deductions, to cover money owed to utility companies, housing providers, councils and others, stretch tight budgets even further, pushing people into debt and, according to charities such as StepChange, often forcing them into taking credit elsewhere.

And while claimants can end up confused over what direct deductions from payments are paying for, with the rollout of Universal Credit full service, representatives from organisations such as Citizens Advice have been restricted in their ability to represent clients.

by Liam Kirkaldy

The poverty trap

That means that, while under the previous system, an adviser could call up DWP staff and make representations on someone’s behalf, under the new regime, with ‘implicit consent’ removed, clients must now provide explicit consent to have a representative access specific information relating to their claim.

Anecdotal evidence, uncovered by Holyrood in December, suggests the removal of implicit consent will present another barrier to those seeking to navigate the system. In one case, a local Citizens Advice Bureau had a client who was in hospital with pneumonia when their first appointment was scheduled. Her partner went to the Jobcentre in her place to explain the situation, only to be told that she still had to phone UC and explain her missed appointment from hospital. The client’s nurse then phoned on her behalf, but this was unacceptable to UC, meaning that, finally, the client had to go to the phone in hospital to explain that she was too ill to attend the appointment.

In fact, Citizens Advice had been broadly supportive of UC, at least in principle, when it was first put forward. But concern grew, eventually culminating in the organisation calling for the rollout to be paused while problems were addressed.

As Labour MP Frank Field put it: “Universal Credit’s design and implementation have been beset with difficulties that knock claimants into hunger, debt and homelessness, but the most glaring of these in the first instance is the six-week wait for payment.

“I doubt many households in this country could get by for six weeks, and for many, much longer, with no income, never mind those striving close to the breadline. The baked-in wait for payment is cruel and unrealistic and government has not been able to offer any proper justification for it.”

So while Freeman found herself on the receiving end of a standing ovation as the Social Security Bill was passed (albeit following several successful amendments from opposition parties), there are still huge challenges for those navigating the UK welfare system.

In fact, the passage of the bill was enough to win the minister her promotion to Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport – replacing Shona Robison – meaning that it will be her replacement, Shirley-Anne Somerville, who will oversee the portfolio as Cabinet Secretary for Social Security and Older People.

Clearly, with the dubious honour of following a politician generally seen as one of Sturgeon’s most effective operators, Somerville will have plenty to occupy herself – from the continued devolution of the new powers, to responding to UK policy changes in reserved areas.

Social Security Scotland, headquartered in Dundee with an additional site in Glasgow, will employ 1,500 people once fully operational, providing face-to-face support and advice and supported by centralised administrative functions.

But rolling out a new service will not be easy, particularly in an area as complex as the welfare system. In that context, given the fierce criticism of the UK’s approach dished out by Scottish ministers in the past, Somerville will be under huge pressure to set about proving Scotland can do things differently.