Seòmar agus comataidhean

I just want to check whether there are any barriers that have to be overcome to allow some of that to happen. For example, I tap on and tap off quite happily using First Glasgow. I am not a driver, so I am on 20-plus buses a week. There are capped daily and weekly fares, but there is no interoperability with other bus services in the city. The technology is there, but the interoperability is not. Is there a role for the national board to enable that? That would be required for, say, franchising, to enable profit-sharing.

That is helpful, more for my understanding than to scrutinise you in your role as cabinet secretary.

It is the legislative basis that we are scrutinising rather than the policy positions once that legislative basis has been changed, but that is very helpful.

This section of questioning is about where the liability for overpayments sits. The bill will bring in the potential for client representatives to be liable for overpayments. The intention of the provision on liability is that the person who benefits from an overpayment will be liable for it, regardless of whether that person is a representative of the claimant or the individual who has the right to the underlying claim in the first place. Has the Government got the balance right in its framing of the provision? Are there alternatives that the witnesses might want to suggest? Erica Young is twitching her head. Is that an indication that you wish to speak?

Okay. I think that I will be looking back over the Official Report and digesting that information. We will see what the Government says in response. I will move on.

Ms Young, your organisation spoke about an income threshold in relation to debt recovery. Provisions in the bill would require Social Security Scotland to look at the financial circumstances of each individual where liability has been determined, any appeals process has been exhausted and it is clear that there has been an overpayment. Why should there be an income threshold?

I appreciate your concerns.

Ms Young, you said that there are no fleshed-out criteria by which the ability to pay or what a reasonable rate would look like would be determined. One option could be to provide decent guidance on that, rather than to provide an income threshold. I suspect that Ms Young would still want an income threshold. However, I ask about guidance because income thresholds could change over time—

Are you saying that the general principle is correct but that there needs to be clarity on where the liability sits, given that the advice sector might offer advice and then act on the instructions of clients, regardless of whether they follow the advice that was offered, and that account needs to be taken of whether there has been a direct financial benefit to the individual or organisation concerned after an overpayment has been made?

In other words, the underlying principle is okay, but the provisions need to be set out more clearly. I do not want to put words in your mouth, but we are considering whether the bill needs to be beefed up or made clearer. Is that what you are saying?

Is there a general consensus among the witnesses that that is the case, or do others have views that are contrary to that or additional comments to make?

I can see nodding heads—in the room, anyway. Would anyone online like to come in?

It is helpful to have some real-life examples of how the provision will have to be applied in practice, so I appreciate that.

I will move on. I will turn back the clock slightly to talk about redeterminations and appeals. I suppose that this question is for Jon Shaw, because the issue was raised in CPAG’s written evidence. The bill will allow for a review of a decision on overpayment liability. The legislation refers to a review, but, Mr Shaw, I think that your organisation refers to a redetermination. Are those just different words for the same thing?