Seòmar agus comataidhean

Agenda item 2 is an evidence session on the draft Social Security (Advocacy Service Standards) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2021. As this is the committee’s first consideration of affirmative regulations, I will quickly summarise the process.

We will start with an evidence session with the minister, which will be followed by a formal debate on the motion. The minister will be given the opportunity to move the motion and to respond at the end of the debate. The committee will be asked to make a recommendation to Parliament on whether we consider that the regulations should be approved. That recommendation will be made via a report.

Before we begin, I thank the minister for sharing the draft amended advocacy service standards with the committee to allow us to make a more informed decision on the regulations that we are considering. I remind colleagues that the draft standards were shared in confidence. Therefore, I encourage members with any questions on the regulations to refer to the draft standards in general terms.

I again welcome to the meeting—his appearing before us is becoming a bit of a habit—Ben Macpherson, Minister for Social Security and Local Government, and Dr Ruari Sutherland, supporting access to social security team leader in the Government’s social security policy division. We are also joined, online, by Colin Armstrong, sponsorship and delivery manager in the social security policy division, and James Clelland, a solicitor in the Scottish Government legal directorate.

I invite the minister to make an opening statement on the regulations.

As there are no more questions, we will move to agenda item 3, which is consideration of motion S6M-00996. I remind the committee that only members and the minister may take part in the formal debate.

I invite the minister to formally move the motion.

Amendment 3, in the name of Maggie Chapman, is in a group on its own.

I apologise to Evelyn Tweed and Miles Briggs. I said at the outset that I would call other members after the amendment had been moved and the minister had spoken to it, and then call the proposer of the lead amendment to wind up. I note that Ms Chapman said that she wished to withdraw the amendment; however, the debate had started. I now invite her to press or withdraw amendment 3.

Through the chair, please.

Just to be absolutely clear, are you saying that you expect that citizens advice bureaux or, for instance, CABIA in my constituency, will still be able to represent constituents at Social Security Scotland tribunals, but it is just that they would not be funded by the Scottish Government?

Moving on to the second instrument, I refer members to paper 5, which details our consideration of the Council Tax Reduction (Scotland) Regulations 2021.

The purpose of these amending regulations is to ensure that, as far as is practicable, a household in the same circumstances receives the same level of council tax reduction whether or not it is on universal credit. The committee wrote to stakeholders in advance of today’s meeting to invite further views on the regulations. On behalf of the committee, I thank Citizens Advice Scotland, the Child Poverty Action Group, One Parent Families Scotland and the Institute of Revenues Rating and Valuation for their responses. I also thank the Minister for Public Finance, Planning and Community Wealth for his written response to the issues raised.

Do members have any comments?

I suggest that we write again to the minister, seeking further detail. That might be helpful to committee colleagues and it might address Pam Duncan-Glancy’s comments. Are colleagues happy to go ahead with the suggestion that we write to the minister, seeking further comment?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you very much indeed for your brevity, Mr Balfour.

Is Ms Duncan-Glancy content for Marie McNair to ask a question along those lines in the same letter to the minister?