Seòmar agus comataidhean

In asking my question, I should caveat it by saying that I absolutely agree that the idea of having a single point of contact and as little disruption as possible for claimants, defenders and the sector makes absolute sense. However, I am looking at the amount-recoverable estimates from Social Security Scotland compared with the set-up and on-going running costs. It could effectively be cost neutral at the end of the day, or it might not collect very much.

I suppose that there are commercial negotiations behind the scenes between the DWP and Social Security Scotland, so the more figures that are put in the public domain, the more the DWP can squeeze for a better deal for itself in relation to this. We could get to a point in the future where the figures show that it makes sense to set up a stand-alone Scottish system, which could still dovetail nicely with the UK system. The bill does not suggest that, and I am not suggesting that—I am asking a question about future proofing, given that it is pretty self-evident from the numbers, if I have looked at them accurately, that the benefit to the Scottish taxpayer of doing this at all is relatively minimal in the first instance. If we fast forward five or 10 years, and the numbers show that there is a business case to set up a stand-alone Scottish system, do you have any reflections on how that could be done, and whether there is a way of dovetailing nicely with the wider UK system?

That is very helpful and important to put on the record. The key thing is that, whatever happens in the future, we take the insurance industry and litigators with us in that process to ensure that there is no disruption to the most important thing, which, as Lynne Macfarlane keeps going on about, is the front-end business of ensuring that people get the compensation that they deserve.

So, it relates to benefits actually received and is a full and final settlement. There is no predication of future benefits being accrued.

It is a bit of repetition, but I want to clarify a couple of things. In relation to the debate about whether redeterminations or appeals should be used, some witnesses have said that appeals sounded off-putting for some clients and that they wished to keep redeterminations. Other witnesses shared the views of Erica Young and Richard Gass. Are we overcomplicating things a little?

I think that Ms Young said that it does not matter what we call the process, as long as we de-risk it for the individual. An appeal could include a redetermination clause, which is what Mr Gass said. That would mean that it would move from an appeal and there would be nothing to prevent Social Security Scotland from doing an internal review or redetermination, anyway, in quick order, to see whether there was a glaring inaccuracy in the initial claim. I think that Ms Young called it the appeal-lapsing proposal.

Could we pursue Mr Gass’s idea whereby redetermination and appeal is one process? We would then just need to get the wording or phraseology of that right to ensure that the process is not off-putting for clients. There must be a way to square the circle.

You nodded your head, Mr Gass, but the Official Report will not show that.

We can hear you fine, even though you have had your hand raised for quite a long time.

That is clear, Mr Gass. I had better move on to my line of questioning before I enrage the convener—

So, at the very least, the terminology should be aligned, if not exactly the process.

Thank you. I have no further questions.

That is helpful—thank you.

That is helpful. I see nods from the other witnesses.