Seòmar agus comataidhean

I acknowledge what Mr Doris has just said and what he outlined in his contribution. It is helpful to the point that I am trying to make, which is that, in relation to section 16, I would like to see further work to put on a statutory footing some of the measures that Mr Doris talked about. I say to Mr Balfour that removing part of section 16 by amendment and not replacing it with something else gives us an opportunity at stage 3 to consider what we might do to put some of those things on a statutory footing. That is why the issue is important—I want to put that on the record.

I am sure that the cabinet secretary will want to talk about some of this in her closing remarks, but perhaps we should think about how we could put different requirements, different forms of consequence and different forms of support on that statutory footing. That is why I have sympathy with Mr Balfour for seeking to take out part of section 16 so that we can return to it at stage 3.

The convener is asking for brevity. I could go on, but I will leave it there. I am very grateful.

We are supportive of the Government’s amendments in this group.

I will turn briefly to Mr Balfour’s two amendments. I recognise some of what the cabinet secretary said, particularly on amendment 126, around ensuring that there is flexibility in the system to appoint the right person to receive money on behalf of a child, and around not interfering or challenging the established processes.

I hear the cabinet secretary’s concern that family court situations might be played out within the social security system. We need to be very careful, and I am reassured by what she has said about the processes and procedures that will be in place.

On amendment 9—or do I mean amendment 126? I am getting my amendment numbers mixed up. In relation to third parties being appointed, I have some concerns around trying to understand exactly the views that have been expressed by the third sector. There has been a variety of views, and this debate has been helpful, but the further clarity that Mr Balfour is looking for from the cabinet secretary would be helpful to have prior to making our decision.

I will make a brief contribution, if I may. I have heard what the cabinet secretary said about amendments 95 and 96, and I have read the purposes and the explanation that it is an approach to tidying up issues in the bill. However, I share the concerns that have been raised about SCOSS perhaps feeling that its power is weakened somewhat and I think that we have to guard against that.

I would be keen for the cabinet secretary to reflect on that in summing up, particularly on the powers and duties that Mr Balfour was referring to. The points in amendment 11 about increasing the powers of scrutiny are very important. Ahead of our stage 3 consideration, we might wish to reserve judgment on a number of those items, but I am keen to put that on the record and try to get some clarity.

In the context of a wider debate about the devolution of the winter fuel payment, the Poverty and Inequality Commission’s advice on whether the payments should be means tested said that that should be explored. What is the cabinet secretary’s view on that advice, which came from her own commission?

I will speak briefly in support of the amendment. The principle is well established: the principle of uprating UK benefits has been established and the new Government has committed to it. Organisations that support people, particularly those in the disabled community, expect uprating. On the basis of the principle and intent, it is the right thing to do.

Amendment 105 would introduce the ability for assistance to be backdated where applicable. The power would allow Social Security Scotland to award entitlement in a range of circumstances that were not foreseen in the 2018 act and the subsequent regulations.

I am pleased that the amendment has the support of the Child Poverty Action Group in Scotland. Evidence from CPAG in Scotland’s early warning system highlights that individuals can lose out on money that they would have been entitled to had they applied earlier, because entitlement cannot be backdated to a date before an application was received.

I believe that members will have received examples of where that is relevant in the briefing for stage 2 that CPAG produced. Some of those scenarios are: delayed applications in relation to a Scottish child payment being dependent on an individual receiving a qualifying benefit; applications that span reaching adult or pension age; terminal illness and issues therein; and changes of circumstances between application, submission and decision for adult disability payment.

Amendment 105 seeks to speak to the principles behind the social security system, which is there to provide a safety net for the most vulnerable when they need it. The system should not have people losing out without good reason, particularly when the system responsible for the delay in accessing assistance has not been taken into account.

I recognise what the cabinet secretary said, that there can be practical implications—financial and otherwise—for the Government and Social Security Scotland to consider around the implementation of backdating. It is important, however, that we ensure that the principle of backdating is at the centre of the system. Amendment 105 would seek to do so for the situations that I referenced.

Similar to what I have said previously, there is a desire to ensure that care leavers are well supported and that the payments come on stream at the right time.

I have a degree of sympathy with Jeremy Balfour’s amendment 1 in ensuring that the Government produces relevant regulations. We have often seen things not happen, and having timescales is important. I would add the caveat that it is important for the system to be designed by people who are care experienced, who sit within the well-established structures across the work that has been done on the Promise and on other issues. When the committee took evidence at stage 1, we spoke about that. As I said, I have a degree of sympathy with the idea of trying to compel ministers to do that.

On amendment 2 and Jeremy Balfour’s concern about the timing of the election and the implementation of regulations, there could be a negative impact, depending on the outcome of the election and who forms the Government, but it could go the other way, too, of course: someone might want to change the regulations to make them more wide ranging or do something different, depending on further consultation and on what happens with different groupings. It works both ways, so I perhaps have less sympathy with amendment 2.

We are happy to support amendment 27, in the name of the cabinet secretary, given the tidying-up, technical nature of it.

I note what Mr Balfour said in his contribution. More widely, I note that the pension age winter heating payment is a benefit that has been created under powers that have been newly devolved to the Parliament. We have not discussed the benefit in recent months, but we did so in the lead-up to that devolution process.

As Mr Balfour mentioned, we must also acknowledge the context of the decision to extend the benefit only to people who are in receipt of pension credit, and the Scottish Government’s agreement to that rule. I have said that it is for the Parliament, and this committee, to continue to work on the new benefit. It is fair that they should decide what any new benefit in Scotland should look like. It is appropriate that such a discussion should be had. I think that all members across the Parliament are willing to come together and debate the relevant criteria.

However, we must recognise, too, that regulations have not yet been introduced. The Government has intimated its intention to pass the benefit back for a temporary period of a year, in order to deliver it to people who are in receipt of pension credit. We have not yet seen regulations or held a debate on that. I have not yet been able to scrutinise and understand Social Security Scotland’s system, to learn why it cannot deliver a different one and why the handing back has had to happen. We must recognise where we are on that.

It is fair to say that we must consider several issues affecting how the benefit could best be delivered and what changes there might be. Mr Balfour has proposed two enabling benefits in this area. More widely, more work needs to be done—for example, on how pension credit and housing benefit interact, and on what decisions and outcomes might arise from any future fiscal events at UK level.

I understand why Mr Balfour has lodged amendment 5. It is important that, as a committee and as a Parliament, we consider the benefit in a Scottish context. However, there are unanswered questions around his proposal, not least in terms of who the benefit would reach, the cost, how the rules would be applied and whether the system could deliver the benefit that he seeks.

Given that we have a period of a year before the benefit is enacted and will be carried by Social Security Scotland, I consider that it would be wise for us to consider it in the round. I do not reject his proposal out of hand, but I think it important that we have further scrutiny and debate. Stage 3 could be an appropriate point to continue that process.

I want to pick up the issues relating to the interaction of your bill and the proposed bill on learning disabilities, autism and neurodivergence. Were I to be generous, I would say that the there is a high degree of uncertainty as to the progress that the LDAN bill will make. We do not think that it will reach fruition by the end of this session of Parliament.

There was debate about whether an LDAN commissioner or commission should be included in that proposal. Is there an opportunity to pick up some of those issues in your bill? If so, how would you deal with the diversity in that community?

I will push you on that point. People want the commissioner to have investigatory powers, and the bill has covered that aspect. However, many people are seeking justice on some of the issues that you have just raised. How would the commissioner go about doing that?