Seòmar agus comataidhean

We absolutely agree that social security should be as accessible and accommodating as possible. When facing exceptionally challenging personal circumstances, such as upheaval in the home, vulnerability, ill health and so on, clients might struggle to apply for assistance in a timely manner. That is an important point that the Government and the agency need to be cognisant of in implementation.

We are considering extending the flexibility that is available through the provision. We think that that is worth while, even if it helps only a handful of cases. After all, that handful of cases will involve people who are, potentially, exceptionally vulnerable and are in the most difficult of circumstances. I am therefore very content to take forward investigations at stage 2 on how we can move forward with that. As I said in my introductory remarks, it is important that we look at exceptional circumstances and see what can be done.

An easy-to-navigate form is automatically included with a redetermination notice. It can, of course, be completed online and so on. This is one of the aspects where we tried to make the process as easy as possible for a client and ensure that it is not opaque. We not only say that people can have a redetermination but set out how that can be done. It is an attempt to deal with the issue in a very open manner.

The form is also designed to collate all the information that the tribunal will require. Of course, clients can contact Social Security Scotland to talk about the completion of any forms, and people can be assisted in completing them.

I do not know whether you want to add anything to that, Iain.

I am happy to provide more detail in writing, but, for example, the bill requires the agency to speak to both the client and the appointee, when that is possible—we appreciate that it might not be possible to speak to both in the case of some disabilities or conditions. We have local delivery teams that can go out on visits to make those checks, which is different from what happens in England.

We can provide a full comparison by correspondence, if that would assist members.

I hope to reassure you on that point. It is important that we audit. One of the reasons for that is to ensure that correct decisions are made. It is important to ensure that the system is not overly generous—that it gives clients the maximum that they are entitled to, but not more than that. Audit is an exceptionally important part of that process, which is why it is important to have that connection with the individual.

With regard to safeguarding, any individual who takes part in the process will be told at the outset that they have the right to support and will be signposted to it. Importantly, individuals can ask to have a request withdrawn if they think that they have good reason to do that. I am happy to work with stakeholders on what such reasons might be.

We are keen to work with stakeholders to find out what types of safeguarding measures they think should be in place in the event that a request is not withdrawn and the individual does not respond. I reassure you that it will not be the case that one letter will be sent out and, if the recipient does not respond within a short time period, they will have had it and their benefit will be stopped. Nobody will have their benefit stopped. Payment might be suspended, but that is very different from its being stopped.

We are keen to ensure that the agency continues to make contact with individuals. If the attempts to contact a person have not succeeded and they have still not contacted the agency, they will have the right to challenge a suspension, and will be signposted to that. We are not talking about an absolute hard stopping of a benefit—it is a suspension. In addition, suspended assistance will be backdated if the person subsequently responds to a request.

We will continue to work with the client to obtain from them the information that we require for an audit, but we will do so in a very supportive fashion. We are trying to ensure that we have a full audit process but one that provides enough safety nets, enough safeguarding and enough support to ensure that we do not get into a position in which the payments to someone who has faced, or is going through, very difficult circumstances are affected.

However, if it is not a voluntary scheme—I have explained the severe difficulties with that—we need some sort of process in place that requires an individual to take part.

We are looking at the balance. I am very happy to work with stakeholders, because I recognise that this is an area of concern and that people could fall through the safety net. I would like to work with stakeholders who have raised concerns to see what more we can do—not necessarily in the bill, but in the guidance and through the agency’s implementation—to build in the types of safeguarding measures that people would rightly expect us to have.

I am very happy to consider amendments, but it is important to consider what should be in guidance rather than in the bill. We will look at what more can be done. To provide reassurance, I note that we have undertaken to lodge a stage 2 amendment that will require a public consultation prior to the exercise of the regulation-making powers. That will allow us to look at the groups that should be exempt from the audit requirements. We are making a genuine attempt to build in safeguarding measures. We are taking time to get this right by consulting and working with stakeholders who, for example, will be exempt from the audit process. It is quite right that some people should be exempt from the process, but it cannot be fully voluntary.

Importantly, consultation has not taken place to the level that we would want nor, I think, that stakeholders would wish for. Of course they will, rightly, speak for themselves on the issue, but, at this point, I would feel much more comfortable with that consultation being undertaken rather than the provisions being in the bill.

We are just checking. My belief is that affirmative procedure will be used, but I want to make absolutely certain of that. If it is not, we can make it affirmative.

Our intention is to work with the DWP on an agency agreement. That does not have to be what happens in the long term, but that is our intention at this point.

I see where the member is coming from on that. However, if you are running two systems at the same time, you are still running and therefore paying for two systems. As for what you are not getting, I would point to the difference between a review and a redetermination. Under one of the important aspects that we brought in with Social Security Scotland, a redetermination is not just about checking for errors in the original decision; it involves taking a fresh look at the entire case. The member is suggesting introducing something that we do not do within the system, involving a review process that is not as thorough as a redetermination. A review is more like what happens with DWP sessions at the moment and, as we discussed when the Social Security (Scotland) Bill was going through, there are downsides to that way of working. That is why we have something very different under the 2018 act, which is a full redetermination involving a look at the entire case with an entirely different team to ensure that the case is examined with a fresh pair of eyes.

I would caution that there are downsides to such proposals, both to the public purse and in terms of what the individual would be getting. That is why my initial response to that idea, working through it as I am speaking, is hesitancy about such an approach.

I am happy to reflect on that. I will perhaps direct you to those people from the tribunals service who are coming to give you evidence—it is perhaps a matter for them rather than for the Government. I hear what you are saying, Mr Balfour, and that you feel that that is a concern. I am happy to reflect on the question that you have given me and to listen carefully to, and reflect on, next week’s evidence if that is something that you bring up again, as I presume that it is. However, I think that that is an issue for the tribunals service rather than the Government.