Best Start Grant: analysis of consultation responses

Summary

Main Findings

The analysis of responses suggests the following main findings in relation to each of the consultation questions related to the draft regulations:

• Q1. Respondents were largely supportive of the 'habitually resident' test, however, concerns were raised in relation to the potential for this to unfairly exclude vulnerable groups such as refugees, asylum seekers, and victims of domestic abuse, as well as EU migrants and those that have recently moved from other parts of the UK. Some questioned how habitual residence in Scotland would operate in practice.
• Q2. There appears to have been some misinterpretation of the purpose of the proposed tests and related question by some respondents who considered this in terms of financial eligibility rather than to establish responsibility for a child. Test 2 was preferred by a larger proportion of respondents and was generally considered to be simpler, more efficient, and allow for greater flexibility in determining responsibility. However, concerns were raised over the reliance on Universal Credit (for example the timescales involved in securing decisions via Universal Credit could have implications for the BSG), and in relation to the implications and risks to the BSG uptake due to the Universal Credit and Tax Credit two child rule. Concerns were also raised for kinship carers under the proposed arrangements at both tests.
• Q3. The need for Universal Credit to pay over £0 in the month preceding or the month in which the BSG application is made was argued to be a barrier for those with fluctuating incomes, those on maternity leave, those in areas heavily dependent on seasonal work, and those on zero hours contracts. Weekly/4 weekly wages, Christmas and bank holidays were also seen as creating potential issues for this approach; and consideration was needed around how sanctions to qualifying benefits might impact BSG.
• Q4. The arrangements for payments to young parents were contentious. The majority of respondents agreed with the proposals, while others felt this negatively stereotyped young parents and impacted on their rights and access to the BSG. Also, difficult family relationships may prevent a young parent from receiving a payment if they are reliant on a parent to apply for them. There is also a risk that the money or associated goods might not ultimately be made available to the young parents/child. Several concerns were raised about taking control of the benefits away from the young parent, notably that the young person's self-efficacy and autonomy could potentially be undermined by possibly coercive or financially controlling grandparents (of the child) or otherwise difficult family dynamics.
• Q5. It was generally felt that the BSG was likely to meet the policy aims set out, and would contribute to tackling child poverty. However, there were suggestions by some that the first child payment should be more widely available, e.g. including to those with large age gaps between children, and that effective promotion of the second and third payments in particular would be crucial in ensuring uptake. One respondent had concerns about the potential exclusion of kinship carers which would contradict the Government's intended policy.
• Q6. Unintended consequences identified included concerns around the reliance on Universal Credit ( e.g. not providing a true reflection of income) and again highlighted the potential confusion around the Tax Credit two child rule and the implications for BSG uptake. Implications for those who choose not to use nurseries and/or to defer school intake were highlighted, along with a concern that the eligibility criteria and application process may be too complex for applicants to understand, and a risk that cash payments would not be used as intended.
• Q7. In relation to potential gaps, again it was suggested that the qualifying benefits currently exclude several which could be useful, including the Council Tax Reduction, Maternity Allowance and Disability Living Allowance. Other gaps included the draft regulations not specifying how quickly applications will be processed or sufficient details regarding the re-determination process and timescales, and that students and care experience young people would potentially be excluded from the BSG where they did not hold a qualifying benefit.
• Q8a and Q8b. The timescales proposed for re-determination requests and processing were largely supported, although some would prefer a longer request period for applicants, and also a longer window for processing should there be a need for further evidence requests/gathering.
• Q9a, Q9b, Q10 and Q11 Impact Assessments. Impacts on refugees and asylum seekers, on the child's rights (in the case of young parents), and on subsequent children receiving lowered amounts were all considered to be potentially discriminatory. Impacts on businesses were largely in line with those identified in the Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment, with increases in enquiries to advice services and the need for training among a wide range of staff highlighted.

Again, it is stressed that these findings represent the views only of those who submitted a response to the consultation and should not be generalised to the wider stakeholder population.

Conclusions

Overall, there was general support for most of the proposals:

• 63% indicated they agreed with the proposed habitual residency tests;
• 41% expressed a preference for Test 2 to confirm responsibility for a child;
• 55% felt that the draft regulations would be likely to meet the policy intent;
• only 22% indicated there were any potential unintended consequences of the regulations;
• only 22% identified gaps in the regulations;
• 53% were happy with the timescales proposed for requests for redetermination;
• 61% were happy with the timescales proposed for the processing of redeterminations;
• only 16% were aware of equality impacts not already identified in the document;
• no respondents were aware of any evidence relevant to the BSG policy and gender reassignment and/or sexual orientation;
• only 12% suggested there were impacts on children's rights and wellbeing which were not identified in the document; and
• only 4% identified any business related impacts not identified in the document.

The two areas that were least well supported or were more contentious were the proposals that qualifications by Universal Credit should be an award of more than £0 in the month in which the application is made, and the proposal that where the parent is under the age of 16, or is 18 or 19 and the grandparent (or another carer) is still in receipt of tax credit or Universal Credit because the parent is still in training or non-advanced education, the grandparent or carer will be the eligible person. Only 33% specified that they agreed that a Universal Credit award of more than £0 in the month in which the application is made was appropriate, with the main concern focusing on the barriers this may create for those with fluctuating and/or irregular incomes. Meanwhile, although 45% were happy with grandparents being treated as the eligible person, several respondents (both for and against the proposal) expressed concerns that this may undermine the rights and responsibilities of young parents, and could be inappropriate in difficult family circumstances.

In addition, several recurring themes were highlighted by respondents throughout the consultation. There were general concerns for some regarding the reliance placed upon Universal Credit and the likely implications this might have for the BSG. It was suggested that additional qualifying benefits should be included in the eligibility criteria, including Maternity Allowance, Council Tax Reduction and Disability Living Allowance (although it should be noted that the consultation document was transparent about there being limited scope to change other elements of policy, such as additional qualifying benefits).

There was also a perception that certain groups could potentially (either intentionally or unintentionally) be excluded from BSG eligibility and/or face particular challenges and delays created by the proposed system, including kinship carers, refugees and asylum seekers, and students.

Finally, it was stressed that there is a need for clear guidance for both decision makers and applicants, and for effective promotion of the BSG at all stages to maximise uptake. Widespread training and awareness raising of the BSG will also be required among partner agencies and advice and advocacy services to ensure that appropriate signposting is provided, and that applicants can access the necessary information and be suitably supported throughout the process. Ensuring that potential recipients clearly understand the application and appeals process is key.

How to access background or source data

The data collected for this <statistical bulletin / social research publication>:

☐ are available in more detail through Scottish Neighbourhood Statistics

☐ are available via an alternative route <specify or delete this text>

☐ may be made available on request, subject to consideration of legal and ethical factors. Please contact <email address> for further information.

☐ cannot be made available by Scottish Government for further analysis as Scottish Government is not the data controller.