Seòmar agus comataidhean

We recognise from the evidence that stakeholders have concerns about that. Again, I want to provide them with the reassurance that we absolutely do not intend—in the bill or anywhere else—for professional advisers who act on clients’ instructions, such as welfare rights officers or those who work in citizens advice bureaus, to be made liable for overpayments.

It is very important that we reassure stakeholders, which I am happy to do today, as well as see whether there is anything else that needs to be done to tighten up the provisions in the bill. At the moment, I am content with how we intend to go about that. A full list of the people who fall within the definition of a “representative” will be set out in the regulations. It is absolutely not the intention to pull those who give advice, such as welfare rights officers, into that definition. I am happy to work with stakeholders to make sure that the reassurance is in the regulations.

I will bring in my colleague to answer that.

Part 6 did not form part of the full consultation, but we have tried to consult stakeholders who will be most impacted by what is proposed or who have the most obvious relation with clients who will be impacted. There has been targeted consultation, but it did not form part of the full public consultation on the bill.

I think that I said this in my opening statement but, if I did not, I record my thanks to the DPLR Committee for its diligence, as always, on the bill, and in particular on the issue that Bob Doris has raised.

I hope that I can alleviate the concerns that have been raised. It is vital that, when offences are created in legislation, the terms of each offence are clear and properly understood by those who might find themselves accused of committing the offences. To that end, it is our intention to carry out in-depth engagement with all relevant stakeholders, including from the insurance industry, before we clearly lay out the details of such offences in regulations.

One of the reasons for the approach that we have taken is that we want to ensure that there is further on-going consultation with those who will be directly impacted by the offences in the bill. We intend to ensure that the details of the offences that will be created align with the investigatory provisions, which will also be in secondary legislation and will apply appropriately to corporate bodies. We must ensure that the various regulations link up, are compatible with one another and are coherent. Of course, the Parliament will have the opportunity to reject the regulations if it does not appreciate what comes forward.

The approach that we are taking is not unprecedented. A similar power was taken to make provision about offences that are already contained in the 2018 act, so the approach follows on from that which was taken in that legislation in relation to offences.

You can claim it as a win either way. [Laughter.]

It is our intention to create a recovery scheme that is consistent with the approach that has been undertaken in the rest of the UK, which is of long standing and has been agreed with stakeholders. Well, not entirely, actually; I will caveat that. I am not sure that what the DWP went through was agreed by stakeholders, but it is certainly understood by stakeholders. I therefore do not see a reason for change from that and am happy to reassure stakeholders that there will be consistency.

We want consistency because we want to reduce complexity and uncertainty. That is an important aspect. Sometimes, change and difference are necessary and sometimes they are not; I do not see such a necessity in this case.

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, I am more than happy to lodge amendments at stage 2 to extend the role of SCOSS in relation to some of the regulations that we have talked about today. I absolutely recognise and am greatly appreciative of the role that SCOSS has played from day 1 in considering regulations, so I am keen to ensure that its role is expanded, changed and developed as the system for social security moves on.

The committee will be aware that there was recently an independent review of the SCOSS governance arrangements, which identified some changes to ensure that SCOSS is resilient and fit for purpose. The bill looks at implementing the recommendations of that, but I am happy to consider lodging stage 2 amendments to bring more powers into the bill in relation to the scope of formal SCOSS scrutiny, following the stakeholder contributions at stage 1 and a recent letter that I received from the SCOSS board. I am working with officials on all the details of what has come through from SCOSS—as I say, it came through very recently. I will go through that in detail with my officials.

We intend to move forward at stage 2, and I will bring forward aspects around the care experience assistance and other areas that I mentioned earlier.

Thank you very much and good morning, convener.

I begin by thanking everyone who has contributed to the development of the bill that we are here to talk about today. I am grateful for the productive contributions to the Parliament’s scrutiny that have been provided by the evidence given so far by our engaged stakeholders on what can be technical and complex issues. It has added to the engagement that we have had through consultation, co-facilitated events and work with people on our experience and client panels.

We have listened to the points that have been raised by stakeholders and by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, and I am pleased to say that we intend to build on those points with a number of stage 2 amendments to improve the bill, including the introduction of new flexibilities for late applications in exceptional circumstances, further extension of the range of regulations scrutinised by the Scottish Commission on Social Security and a requirement for Scottish ministers to consult on categories that will be exempt from information requests as part of audits.

The bill will enhance the Scottish system of social security in line with our social security principles, which are set out in the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 and were supported by the entire Scottish Parliament. Those that are particularly relevant to the bill are that

“opportunities are to be sought to continuously improve the Scottish social security system in ways which ... put the needs of those who require assistance first”,

and that

“the Scottish social security system is to be efficient and deliver value for money”.

The bill represents an essential collective investment in a system from which we might all need help from time to time. It is expected to generate savings of around £2.8 million in its first year of implementation, followed by £3.5 million in recurring annual savings. The projected implementation costs are estimated to be between £10.1 million and £27.8 million, and that large range is a reflection of prudent overestimates, calculated in line with best practice for estimating project costs.

The bill is drafted in eight substantive parts related to the two principles that I mentioned, with parts 1, 2, 5 and 8 seeking to improve client experience, parts 6 and 7 focusing on delivering value for money and parts 3 and 4 speaking to both principles. Some parts of the bill seek to amend or repeal sections of the 2018 act, while others seek to create new provisions in it.

The bill aims, in particular, to introduce new rights for people; to save money by increasing efficiency and reducing unnecessary processes; to improve the scrutiny of social security; to take powers to improve existing benefits; and to introduce a power to create a new benefit for people with care experience. I am happy to work with committee members and, of course, our stakeholders to take forward the bill’s important set of improvements.

I am happy to answer the committee’s questions.

That follows on from the points that I made to Jeremy Balfour. There are very different types of benefits. When we move from a single-payment benefit, such as the young carer grant, or move forward with aspects of the Scottish child payment or disability payments, we see that they are all very different, and the same dates will not necessarily work for everything. However, as I have said, I am more than happy to see whether there is anything that can be done to assist, if there is any confusion.

It is clear that we developed social security in an iterative fashion—and quite rightly so. We dealt with things benefit by benefit. It is helpful at this point to have an opportunity to take a little bit of a step back and hear from clients with experience of going through the system and from representatives, such as citizens advice and welfare rights officers, about whether they are finding areas that are overly complex.

There might be very good reasons why the different dates are in place for clients to apply or for Social Security Scotland to undertake work. I give as an example the fact that the length of time that it will take the agency to carry out a redetermination for a single-payment benefit is very different from the time that it will take for, say, adult disability payments, for which a great deal of evidence and supporting information might have to be worked through. It is very important that there is no one-size-fits-all policy. There should be an openness from the Government and the agency to hear from clients with experience and people who have assisted them to see whether anything can be done to make the system easier.

As we have said from the start, one of the key things that we want to do with social security is to make it as simple as possible for people to apply for it and ensure that there are no barriers. That is very important. What we do about dates might be one small aspect of that, but it is an important aspect that we are happy to look at.

It is important that we share information with the DWP when that is in the best interests of the client and when due process is followed. There are back-office systems to facilitate the sharing of information both for the case transfers that you mentioned and for new applications.

The powers in the bill will allow the speedy payment of a benefit if an appointee is already in place with the DWP, but it is important that the agency then goes through its own process, because the system that we have established in Scotland includes more checks than the DWP system. If we simply accepted a DWP appointee and did not have our own processes in place, that would, in effect, go against something that we deliberated long and hard about in 2018, which was the level of assurance that we would need to have about appointees, and we would have a less rigorous system.

In essence, it would be easier not to have two processes. However—noting that we, quite rightly, would not expect the DWP to change its system to match ours because it is perfectly entitled to make its own decisions—that would require our agency to reduce the number of checks that we have in place at the moment, when the level of checks for appointees has previously been discussed and agreed.

On that basis, and because I hope we still agree that we have the correct level of checks in Scotland, we must ensure that we have the powers in the bill to recognise the DWP appointee and then move speedily to the checks that the agency would need to carry out, so that we can move forward on the basis of the Scottish system.

I hope that that explanation of why we have two different levels of checks in the two departments makes sense.