Seòmar agus comataidhean

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 Importantly, individuals can ask to have a request withdrawn if they think that they have good reason to do that.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to find out what types of safeguarding measures they think should be in place in the event that a request is not withdrawn and the individual does not respond.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.

I think that dignity, fairness and respect should be embedded not just in social security but in how we provide public services in general. Where that fits in the statutory setting should and very much does depend on the consultation that is moving forward on the care leaver payment. In the first instance, we intend to use the powers in the 2018 act to deliver that payment, but the details of the delivery vehicle for that proposed payment have yet to be determined and will be set out in further regulations.

Because of that, it is very important that we then have the space to work with stakeholders on how best to apply our principles. For example, the Scottish welfare fund sits outside Social Security Scotland. When that was reviewed recently, stakeholders did not wish it to be delivered by Social Security Scotland and did not press for the types of statutory footing that are being talked about, which are already set out in the principles of the 2018 act.

At this point in our deliberations on the care leaver payment, it is important that we have the statutory footing to allow us to take the payment forward, but it is also important to leave the Government space to work with stakeholders on the regulations in detail, to see exactly what they would provide for. That is the right way to take forward the level of detail that you asked for in your question, convener.

That goes back to one of the principles that I discussed in my opening remarks, which is about ensuring that we run an effective system but always with the principles of dignity, fairness and respect underpinning it. We have a duty to steward those public funds responsibly, and a key part of that is about recovering assistance that has been paid out incorrectly, where it is reasonable to do so. That is the very important caveat, which I hope reassures Mr Balfour.

The decision about where to place liability hinges on two questions. Did the individual or their representative cause or contribute to the error, and was it the sort of error that a reasonable person would be expected to notice? If the answer to both those questions is no, neither the representative nor the individual will be considered liable. It is important that people are reassured that the system that we have in place is thorough and that it will look seriously at overpayments, but that it will not do so in a punitive manner when people have made genuine errors.

If the representative made an error in good faith but it was the sort of error that a person could reasonably have been expected to notice, that would mean that the benefit was paid out incorrectly. Therefore, it is important that the benefit is recovered, where possible. In our view, it is fairer to place the liability for the overpayment on whichever party benefited from it—there is an important distinction between the person the benefit is for and their representative. In those circumstances, as in all cases in which there have been errors, we would look at the issues case by case.

It is important that the process has a statutory underpinning and that the guidance that the agency uses for that process is worked on together with stakeholders, so that those who represent vulnerable clients are reassured that the agency has in place safeguarding measures that ensure that the system is not punitive and does not seek to recoup overpayments in a way that is detrimental to the individual if they are in difficult financial circumstances. The agency will work with stakeholders on the operational guidance, which will include the safeguarding measures. It is important to have a strong and robust system and that we are respectful and cognisant of an individual’s case or of the circumstances of the representative of the individual.

I do not think that that needs to be included in the bill. There is a requirement for flexibility, and needs will change. Looking way into the future, when we have all moved on to other things, we would perhaps be obligating the agency to collect information by statute that it does not necessarily want to collect. Say, for instance, we entirely changed a benefit but we still had something in legislation requiring the agency to collect information. That would be quite a blunt instrument.

What is behind your questioning is the fact that we need to ensure that we are gathering the right information, and I accept that that is correct. We are developing that process with the agency, which I know is keen to have systems in place to allow the collecting of more management information for its own benefit and, therefore, that of the client.

I do not think that that needs to be in the bill, partly because of that inflexibility but also because you are pushing at an open door, Mr Balfour—indeed, we all agree that more needs to be collected, and I am always happy to have suggestions from the committee about where that might be.

I often have discussions with the chief executive and the senior team on the level of management information that we have and what it is possible to publish to allow full transparency. I sometimes have frustrations that, at this point, we cannot publish as much as I would like in order to be able to demonstrate how well the system is going.