Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is very helpful, because I now realise that there is a very clear difference between reviews and redeterminations, which I was not aware of. Thank you for that, Mr Shaw.

If there is a review, is it unclear whether that will still progress to an appeal if that review is not successful for the individual? Is that one of the more substantive issues in relation to why redeterminations and reviews are different? I just want the committee to be clear on that point. I am sorry if I have not understood correctly, Mr Shaw, but I want to tease out the importance of a redetermination as opposed to a review.

It is always helpful to get a real-life example, because it makes the situation real rather than our just dealing with dusty legislation, if you like. Was that repayment figure requested by Social Security Scotland?

Given that Mr Shaw has set out priorities for using the greater flexibility in the bill and the provision for a stand-alone benefit, I will direct my question to him.

The Scottish child payment is not about providing more money; it is about providing greater flexibilities, which might require more money. Will you say a little bit more about the cliff edge, not just in relation to universal credit but in relation to better-off calculations for people? They might lose their entitlement to universal credit because they increase their hours of work or get into full-time employment. Does that mean a hard landing for some families, and is there a disincentive for some people to go into work because there is no taper or roll-on in relation to Scottish child payment levels as folk get employment or go into full-time employment?

—and there is an issue of whether a threshold would be in the bill or whether the bill would provide the power for an income threshold to be set at a later date, on the basis that secondary legislation could amend the income threshold, as appropriate. However, I am conscious that any agreed income threshold might be a bit arbitrary. There are other things that might be happening in an individual’s life that must also be taken into account. Are you wedded to an income threshold? If so, should that be in the bill? Might more meaningful guidance also be a way round that situation?

That is helpful. Thank you.

Yes, it is important that you put that on the record, so thank you for doing that.

Dr Dixon and Mr Roberts will understand that these questions come from previous evidence that we have heard in relation to the matter.

Some witnesses have suggested that ESS has not quite got into the swing of using its full range of enforcement powers. Informal agreements can be better sometimes, but ESS has a range of enforcement powers and questions have been raised about whether there is sufficient expertise as yet within this young organisation, as both witnesses have put it, and whether ESS is fully resourced. This is your opportunity to respond to some of those comments.

The point that the use of enforcement powers is not necessarily a sign of success was well made. There are other ways to get the outcomes that ESS is looking for. That was interesting to hear. However, you also talked about the very high bar that applies before some of those powers can be used. I put my hands up: I have no idea whether it is appropriate that the bar is set so high. Is it set at a reasonable level for ESS, or are you still taking into account that you are bedding in as an organisation before you can determine that?

That is very helpful. Thank you.

I might just do that at some point in the future. I was not trying to throw you a curve ball; I could simply have asked whether exceptionally good use was being made of public funds, and I think that the answer to that would simply be yes, for all the reasons that you have just outlined.

The point that I was making is that, if such a massive investment of public money is going into the bus network without compromising any of the entitlements, there might be a more effective way to use the investment in the future. I think the minister has said that he is not closed to that, but he is currently wedded to the current system, as he should be.

I found your exchange with Mr Simpson helpful, minister, because it reminded me of the complexity that sits in the existing scheme. There has to be complexity to it, because we have to protect the public purse and we have to recognise that bus operators are valued partners, but they are commercial operators that will seek to maximise the yield that they can get for their business. I am pleased that they have come to an agreement with the Government.

It is important that, on the one occasion when the cap was exceeded, there was realpolitik and the bus companies and the Government got round the table to agree a way forward that was reasonable not just for the public purse but for the bus companies.

I am reassured by the modelling work and the data, particularly on the older persons scheme, which has been going for some time now. The data is very precise. What happened previously was that, when new technology was put on all the buses across Scotland, we realised that not as many journeys were taking place as we first thought were taking place. The technology gave us exact data and allowed the Government to have a much better negotiating position with bus companies at that point.

We are in a good place in which bus companies are valued partners in the scheme and with balanced discussion taking place with sophisticated modelling work. I am sure that the committee would welcome a briefing on how that works, because it is complex. Not all members get that at the first time of asking, so I think that the committee would appreciate that.

Underpinning this are the hugely valuable concessionary schemes for older persons and younger people. This is a massive investment from the Government into the private sector for a publicly deliverable bus system. I will certainly support the motion.