Fairer Scotland Duty (FSD) for Scottish Welfare Fund Statutory Guidance amendments: April 2026

Stage 3 – assessment and improvement

What options could strengthen this programme/policy/decision in its impact on inequalities of outcome?

The proposed changes to the statutory guidance ensure that it is clearer, easier to understand and more accessible for everyone which could help advance equality of opportunity for people on the grounds of their socio-economic background.

An outline of some key changes that have been made to the guidance focused on the impact of inequalities of outcome include:

Additional wording has been added to Annex C which lists the factors that may increase the vulnerability of an applicant. Following discussion with the British Red Cross, we have added “having family reunion visa status” to ensure this group of people are recognised as a vulnerable group when applying to the SWF.

Further to this, we have highlighted in the updated guidance that clarifying wording is added to the exclusions listed under Annex A. Following some local authorities contacting us to clarify whether they have the discretion to award medical items in situations where no NHS or other public funding exists, we have added text that confirms a local authority can use its own discretion to provide a medical item in these instances. We hope that this change will offer greater clarity to those who make decisions on awards and improve outcomes for applicants in need.

We have also proposed that the new Care Leaver Payment being introduced in Scotland in April 2026 is disregarded as income for SWF awards. Following discussions with Poppyscotland/Royal British Legion, we have engaged with the committee members and agreed that additional wording will be added to the statutory guidance to ensure decision makers disregard Service Invaliding Pension and Service Attributable Pension Payments when calculating awards and that Armed Forces Compensation Scheme Guaranteed Income Payments are also considered for disregard by the decision maker.

This will hopefully create greater consistency across local authorities.

What are the pros and cons of these options?

The options considered for implementation will help people facing socio-economic disadvantage and inequality. Statutory guidance that is clearer and easier to understand will make it easier for people to access the support they need and directly continues our focus of ensuring that learning from the independent review is taking into account.

We have not identified any cons for these options.

How could the programme/policy/decision be adjusted to address inequalities associated with particular groups? Communities of interest or of place who are more at risk of inequalities of the outcome?

We continue to use the evidence from the comprehensive SWF Independent Review as well as the feedback and consultation from Statutory Guidance Review Committee members to inform the changes to the statutory guidance. We will continue to keep this under review and amend our proposals as required ahead of launch and in future years.

As well as adding additional clarifying wording in the revised guidance on the responsibility for local authorities to make provision for applications to be taken via three delivery channels and give public notice of this, including on their website and the need to promote the scheme. We will continue to highlight the need to work with referral agencies and partner organisation to ensure vulnerable and socio-economically disadvantaged groups are aware of the fund in times of need.

We have committed to reviewing the Statutory Guidance on an annual basis and our work with our stakeholders and those living in poverty will inform changes to the statutory guidance.