 Welcome to the 11th meeting of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee, and we have no apologies today. Our first item of business for today is a decision to take agenda items 5 and 6 in private. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Our next agenda item is consideration of the nominated appointments of chair and eight commissioners to the poverty and inequality commission. The Scottish Government has undertaken a competitive exercise and identified the most suitable candidates. All have agreed to be nominated for appointment. Under the Child Poverty Scotland Act 2017, the Parliament has a role in approving the Scottish Government's nominees. The committee has met with the selection panel chair to hear about the appointment process and has also had the chance to meet with the recommended appointees. I now invite members to share their views if anybody would like to come in, so I will invite Bob and then I will bring in John Mason. Thank you for the opportunity. I was looking to hear from those who are seeking to be commissioners in the new chair informally just before this meeting. I will make a brief observation. I was struck by the real diverse mix of candidates ranging from academia and policy research. Those involved in the coface of planning service delivery and those working on the ground with young people and families on a daily basis to tackle that poverty and those with direct lived experience. We want our commissioners to have that diverse range of skills and experiences to be a critical friend of Government and fiercely independent. As I heard this morning, I am really enthused by the candidates that are hopefully going to take up those roles. I was somewhat taken aback about how many people had applied to be both the chair and commissioners. It seems to be a very high level of applicants. I was also convinced that it has been a very thorough process to sift them down first to a short lead. The final nominees, which, as Bob Doris has just said, seem to cover a wide range of ground, so I am very happy to go ahead with those appointments. I echo the sentiments that have already been made. I think that it is an excellent mix of backgrounded skills that he heard from today, which is excellent. I just wanted to comment on Mr Sinclair, the proposed chair, his comments that there is going to be some serious work to do considering the child poverty delivery plan needs to be reassessed in the very near future, certainly within the next two years for that delivery for 2030. We have certainly come across a very good mix of people who will work hard to deliver that, but that is certainly a very specific timeframe that they are going to have to work to, certainly within the next couple of years. Certainly that came across very strongly. That is lovely. Anyone else like to come in? No? Okay. I wholeheartedly agree with all of you, and it was really heartening as well to hear about the amount of people that actually applied. There appeared to be, from speaking to the selection chair, just how robust it was, and it is really good to see a diverse range of nominees that were in the room and online with us today as well. I thank you all for your feedback as well. Are members content for the committee to recommend to the Parliament that it approves the appointment of Professor Stephen Sinclair as chair of the commission? Yes. Are members content for the committee to recommend to the Parliament that it approves the appointment of the following nominees as commissioners? We have Peter Costin, Kim Dams, Talia Dreak, Professor Suzanne Fitzpatrick, Paul Fletcher, Louise Hunter, Ross McQueenie and Rami Okasha. We will consider a draft report next week. Do members agree that we will consider the draft report in private next week? Yes. I now briefly suspend the meeting to allow for the setup of the next item of business. Welcome back. We are now moving to agenda item 3, our last evidence session on the Social Security Amendment Scotland Bill. The bill is currently at stage 1, and today we will hear from the Scottish Government. I welcome to the meeting, Shirley-Anne Somerville, Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice and officials accompanying her, Ian Hunter, the bill team leader and Kayleigh Blair, Scottish Government legal department. Thank you all for joining us today. Before we move to questions, Cabinet Secretary, I believe that you would like to make an opening statement. Thank you very much and good morning, convener. I would like to begin by thanking everyone who has contributed to the development of the bill that we are here to talk about today. I am very grateful for the productive contributions to the Parliament scrutiny provided by the evidence given so far by our very engaged stakeholders on these technical and complex issues. That really has added to our engagement that we have already had through consultation, co-facilitated events and work with people on our experience and client panels. We have listened to the points raised both 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 to introduce new flexibilities for late applications in exceptional circumstances to extend further the range of regulations scrutinised by the Scottish Commission on Social Security and requiring Scottish ministers to consult on categories to 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 that were set out on the Social Security Scotland Act 2018. Those principles were supported by the entire Parliament, and the principles particularly relevant to the bill are the opportunities to be sought to continuously improve the Scottish social security system in ways that 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 all may need help from time to time. It is expected to generate savings of around £2.8 million in the first year of its implementation, followed by £3.5 million in the recurring annual savings. The projected implementation costs are estimated to be between £10.1 million and £27.8 million, and the 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 discussed earlier. Parts 1, 2, 5 and 8 will improve client experience. Parts 6 and 7 are focused on delivering value for money, and parts 3 and 4 speak to both principles. Some parts of the bill seek to amend or repeal sections of the 2018 act, and others seek to create new provisions in it. The bill aims in particular to introduce rights for people, save money by increasing efficiency and reducing unnecessary processes, improve the scrutiny of social security, take powers to improve existing benefits and introduce a power to create a new benefit for people with care experience. I am very happy to work with members of the committee and, with our stakeholders, to take forward this important set of improvements that we have in the bill. I am happy to answer questions from the committee today. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary, for that opening statement. We are going to kick off with some questions. I am going to start with theme 1, which is new forms of benefit, and that is part 1 of the bill. Does the cabinet secretary think that it would be beneficial for care experience assistance to be subject to the general statutory framework for social security, including the statutory principles, appeals, the take-up strategy, annual uprating and scrutiny by SCOSS and the Charter? If so, why not provide that in the bill in keeping with most other forms of Scottish social security? I very much do think that dignity, fairness and respect is something that should embed not just social security but how we provide public services in general. Where that fits in the statutory setting, though, I think very much does and should depend on the consultation that is moving forward on the care lever payment. We intend to use, in the first instance, the powers within the act to deliver that care lever payment, but the details on 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 important that we have the space to work with stakeholders on how best to apply our principles. If I can give, for example, the Scottish welfare fund, which sits outside Social Security Scotland, which a recent review was undertaken of, and stakeholders did not wish that to be delivered by Social Security Scotland, and did not press for the types of statutory footing that are being talked about here, that are already in the principles of the 2018 act. At the point that we are at in our deliberations on the care lever payment, it is important that we have the statutory footing to allow us to take that payment forward but to leave Government with the space to work with stakeholders on the regulations in detail and see exactly what they would provide for us. I am going to take forward the level of detail that you are suggesting, convener, in your question. I am going to invite Ross McAulin for a quick supplementary. We took evidence from Michael Clancy of the Law Society of Scotland that legally, to conform with the UNCRC, an increase to the age of a child to 18, that Scottish child payment should also increase to that age. I was wondering what the Scottish Government and your position, cabinet secretary, is on that and what response you would have to Michael Clancy of the Law Society. It is a very important point that has raised. What I would point to is that although the Scottish child payment is not available to young people over 16, our education maintenance allowance indeed is. It is not to say that there is not a payment and support that is available, it is a different type of support but there is support that is available for young people between 16 and 18. I am sorry just to confirm because it did sound on that evidence that this might actually be a legal position. Is that something that the Government has looked at and is it something that they are minded to do? At present, we do not have any plans to extend the eligibility of the Scottish child payment for older children. It is there to alleviate child poverty. That is an absolutely important principle of the Government but, as I say, there are other benefits including education maintenance allowance that is available for children or for young people that are over 16. I am now going to move on to Jeremy Balfour. Good morning, cabinet secretary, and good morning to your team. It is always good to have you here. The committee has heard that it would be beneficial if, for benefits that must be claimed within a certain timeframe, claimants were able to make late applications in exceptional circumstances. The committee has also taken evidence on cause to extend provisions for back dating. I wonder what your views are on those two areas. We absolutely agree that social security should be as accessible and accommodating as possible and are facing exceptionally challenging personal circumstances, whether that is upheaval in the home, vulnerability or ill health. Clients may indeed struggle to apply for assistance in a timely manner. That is an important point that the Government and the agency in the implementation need to be cognisant of. We are considering extending the flexibility available through the provision. We think that that is worthwhile. Even if it only helps a handful of cases, it is a handful of cases from people that are potentially exceptionally vulnerable in the most difficult of circumstances. I am very content to take forward investigations at stage 2 about how we can move forward with that. It is very important, as I said in my introduction remarks, that we look at exceptional circumstances and see what can be done in that matter. That is helpful. In regard to back dating as well, would that be a similar thing that you would be willing to look at? I think that, as with everything that I said in my opening remarks, one of the aspects that I am very keen and open to doing in social security is looking at that continuous improvement. We set the system up from scratch. Mr Blaffer was one of those people who assisted the Government in that with his points at that time. We must always be open to looking to see what needs done on certain issues. We need to look at it benefit by benefit to see what needs done. For example, there are some benefits where there is already a level of back dating. There are other benefits where eligibility is due because it is a top-up benefit. I am very happy to take away and look to see whether there is further work that can be done on that. What I would caution is a blanket approach that assumes what works for one benefit and will necessarily work for another, because there are very different circumstances and different types of benefits. However, it is something that I have asked officials to work with stakeholders on to see if there is anything that could be done that could be taken forward. We are now moving on to theme 3, which is challenging decisions. I am now going to invite Marie McNeary. Thank you, convener. Good morning, Cabinet Secretary and officials. As part of our evidence session for the last five weeks, we have heard how confusing it is for people to access the security. There are suggestions being made that why do we not just have the same deadlines across for all benefits in terms of requesting a redetermination? I just wanted to know what your view on that was, Cabinet Secretary. I think that, in some ways, it follows on from the points that I just made to Jeremy Balfour. There are very different types of benefits in here if we move from a single payment benefit such as the young carers grant or we move forward with aspects around the Scottish child payment or disability payments. It is not necessarily the case that the same dates work for everything, but, as I said, I am more than happy to see whether there is anything that can be done to assist if there is any confusion in there. Clearly, as we develop social security, we did so quite rightly in an iterative fashion, where we dealt with it benefit by benefit. It is helpful at this point to have an opportunity to take a little bit of a step back and to hear both from clients with the experience of going through the system, but also from representatives, citizens advice, welfare rights officers, et cetera, that are going through this. If they themselves are finding areas that are perhaps overly complex, there may be very good reasons, as I said, why the different dates are in place, either for a client to apply or for Social Security Scotland to undertake the work. I give as an example the fact that a redetermination for a single payment in terms of how long it will take the agency to do that is very different for a single payment as it is for something like adult disability payments, where there is a great deal of evidence that may have to be worked through, supporting information that may have to be worked through as we go through that. It is very important again that there is not a one-size-fits-all policy to it, but a very much an openness from the Government and indeed from the agency to hear from clients themselves with the experience and also from those who have assisted them to see if there is anything that can be done to make the system any easier for them. It is very important, as we have said all the way from the start, that 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 to ensure that there is no barriers. Anything that we can do around dates, of course, is one small aspect of that, but it is an important aspect that we are happy to look at. It has also been suggested to the committee that instead of redetermination followed by appeal, a simpler approach would be to go straight to appeal. Any unnecessary appeals could be avoided by lapsing appeals where necessary. Again, what are your views on that, Cabinet Secretary? I followed that line of evidence with great interest because Mr Balfour may remember that we had discussions at the time absolutely about ensuring that people had redetermination because they found tribunals intimidating, a process that can be time consuming and, of course, for the public purse more expensive. On reflection from stage 2, we think that there is anything that can be done. I am happy to look at that. However, as we have laid it out at the moment, I think that there is enough opportunity for people to have redeterminations in a simple and timely manner to allow that to be an important part of the process. It was something that we discussed in great detail when the bill was originally going through, and that was the reason that it has been set out in the way that it has. However, I recognise that people have said their points on that. I do not know if officials want to come in with any more details on the work on that. I would say that there are also things that the committee wishes to consider about, for example, doing away with the redetermination step and going straight to appealing that. We have to bear in mind about taking on what the cabinet secretary said about people's preferences. There are also the resource demands on the Scottish Scots and Tribunals service, so I know that the committee will speak into it next week. If we were to take out the redetermination step not only from the individual's perspective of preferring a redetermination to the more formal setting of a tribunal, there is also the question of, could this increase in tribunal numbers be handled by the Scottish Scots and Tribunals service? It has also been suggested that the current legislation is too inflexible because it requires appeals to be made in a specific form, and that was raised by Welsh Rights Scotland. What are your views on that? Easy to navigate form is automatically included with a redetermination notice. It can, of course, be done online and so on. This is one of the aspects where, again, we were trying to make it as easy as possible for a client, so it is not an opaque process, but we are not only saying that you can make a redetermination, but actually here is how it can be done. This is, again, attempts for us to be able to deal with this in a very open manner. The forms are also designed to collate all the information that the tribunal will require. Of course, clients can contact Social Security Scotland to talk about completion of any forms and, of course, people can be assisted in completing those forms as well. I think that the clearest way that I could explain this to the committee is that provision in the legislation is not about requiring a specific form as such, a paper form. It is about the information that must be included in order to be treated as an application rather than a blanket insistence on this form, like a form B2. It is about the information that is required by the agency to make a determination of entitlement. It is what is required rather than form X or form Y. I think that, obviously, from the event session that we took the other week there, that is exactly what we came back from, you know, the way for right Scotland, as they were saying that they are not accepting that form that they are putting in, so it has got to be a specific form. So, if we can take that back, that would be great. Some resolution there, too. I am happy to have a further consideration of that and to look at that. Thanks very much. The committee has heard some objections to individuals being liable for the good faith hours of the representative. Can the cabinet secretary explain why someone should be liable for an hour that was neither of their thought nor something a person might be expected to notice? I think that that goes back to one of those principles that I discussed in my opening remarks. That is absolutely out ensuring that we are running an effective system, but always doing so with those principles of dignity, fairness and respect underpinning that. We have a duty to steer those public funds responsibly, and a key part of that is about recovering assistance that is being paid out incorrectly, where it is reasonable to do so. That is the very important caveat that I can hope I can reassure Mr Balfour on. The decision about where you place liability really does hinge on two questions. Did the individual of 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 of those questions is no, then neither the representative or the individual will be considered liable. It is very important that people are reassured that the system that we have in place is thurer. It will look very seriously at overpayments, but it will not do so in a punitive manner where there have been genuine errors made by people. 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 does mean that the benefit was paid out incorrectly. Therefore, it is important that it is recovered where possible. It is fairer in our view to place that liability for the overpayment on whichever party benefited from it. That is the important distinction between a person for whom the benefit is for and their representative. As always, what we will do in those circumstances, as we do with all cases of error, is look very much on a case-by-case basis. It is important that that has a statutory underpinning. It is important that the guidance that the agency uses to go through that is again worked on with stakeholders to ensure that particularly those who represent vulnerable clients are reassured. Those safeguarding measures are in place to ensure that the system is not punitive. It does not seek to get back overpayments in a way where there is a real detriment to the individual, particularly difficult financial circumstances and so on. Those safeguarding measures again are within the guidance, and it is something that the agency, when it is looking at the operational guidance on that, will work with stakeholders to go forward with. It is very important that we have a very strong and robust system, but we do so in a manner that is respectful and cognisant of an individual's case or indeed the representative of that individual's circumstances. That is helpful. Clearly, we do not want to overcomplicate the system, but there are different types of representation, so sometimes it will be a very formal one with a third sector charity, sometimes it may be a family member or a family friend. Is there some kind of distinction that we would draw between, say, CAB-given representation compared to a neighbour helping out somebody? Could that be more clear with the guidance? We have recognised, as the evidence has gone on, that there are concerns from stakeholders, and I again want to provide them with the assurance that we are absolutely not intending in this bill or anywhere else with making professional advisers who act on clients' instructions, such as well for rights officers or those who work in citizens advice bureaus. I do appreciate that it has been raised, and I think that it is very important that we reassure, which I am happy to do today, but also to see if there is anything else that needs done in tightening up off of this. Certainly, at this moment in time, I am content with how we are intending to go about that. A full list of the people within the definition representative will be laid out within the regulations, and absolutely this is, as I said, not the intention to pull into that, those who give advice, such as well for rights officers. I am happy to again work with the stakeholders to make sure, as we are going through the regulations as well, that that reassurance is not just given, but within the regulations. Several witnesses were concerned that many situations such as shared household finances would be difficult in practice to identify whether funds had been misused. How were such decisions made by Social Security Scotland? I think that it is important, and this goes back to what the cabinet secretary was saying. In the vast majority of cases, we expect that appointees that are helping people with their application for benefit will be acting appropriately in the vast majority of cases. Therefore, Social Security Scotland will proceed from the assumption that the representative will be acting properly, and that any of our payments should be covered from the client, because it is the client who will have benefited from that overpayment. I think that the alternative here is that a client who requires someone to act on their behalf in connection with their application for benefit is strictly liable for everything that that appointee may do. While I accept that, in the vast majority of cases, they will be behaving appropriately, they might not always be. Therefore, I do not think that it is right that a person who requires an appointee should necessarily be liable for money that they never saw the benefit of. I refer you back to comments made by the Alliance in its evidence. It noted that social security legislation is not on its own enough to tackle financial abuse. What the bill does is to ensure that the consequences of the abuse fall on the person who is responsible for it in the first place. On that point, Mr Balfour, in those rare cases where Social Security Scotland becomes aware that the funds are being misused, it would be able to oppose liability appropriately for those funds on the basis of that information. That would only happen in practice when that is brought to the attention of the agency. It would also raise other important questions about the appropriateness of that appointee, etc. Thank you, Mr Hunder. Thank you, convener. Thank you very much. Moving on to theme 5, appointees, I invite Paul O'Kane in. Thank you very much, convener, and good morning to Cabinet Secretary and Officials. We have had a number of sessions where we have looked at appointees and had some evidence about the interaction between the DWP system and Social Security Scotland in terms of reciprocal arrangements of recognising appointees, essentially. We know that Social Security Scotland already recognises DWP appointees as part of the transfer process that has been under way. I think that it would be useful, because witnesses did point to this. How can we better streamline processes so that that recognition happens more easily and in the future will continue to happen more easily, so that if somebody has recognised in one system, they are also recognising the Scottish system. I do not know if the cabinet secretary wants to comment on that generally and then we will see if there is follow-up. It is very important that we look to share information with the DWP where it is in the best interests of the client and, obviously, following due processes. We have the back office systems that are there that will facilitate the sharing of information for both the case transfers, as you mentioned, and also for new applications. The powers that are in the bill will allow the speedy payment of a benefit if an appointee is already in place in the DWP. It is important that the agency goes through its own process, because what we have established in Scotland is something with more checks than is in the DWP. If we were to simply just accept a DWP appointee and not have our own processes in place, that would be, in effect, going against what we deliberated long and hard about, about the level of assurance that we would need about appointees in 2018. That would be having a less rigorous system. In essence, it would be easier if we did not have two processes, but that would mean that we would not expect quite rightly the DWP to change their system to match ours. They are perfectly entitled to make their own decisions. It would require the agency to lower the checks that we have in place at this point. As I said, that debate about the level of checks for appointees was something that has been previously discussed and agreed. On that basis, if we do still agree that we have that level correct here in Scotland, then what we need to look to do is ensure that we have the powers within this bill to recognise the DWP appointee but then move speedily to the checks that the agency would need to carry out. Therefore, we move forward on the basis of the Scottish system. I hope that that makes sense to that explanation about why we have two different levels of checks between the two different departments. I think that the committee wanted to understand essentially that we are not starting from scratch in terms of the information that is shared, but I think that it is useful to understand that extra process at Social Security Scotland. I do not know if, for the record, you want to say what some of those additional checks are for those of us who were not here when we introduced the bill in the first place. I am happy to provide some more writing to go through that, but, for example, it requires the agency to speak to both the client and the appointee when that is obviously possible. I would appreciate for some disability conditions that is not necessarily possible to speak to both. We have our local delivery teams who can go out on visits and make those types of checks that are different to what happens in England, but we can provide the full comparison by correspondence if that would help to assist members. I am moving on to theme 6, which is information for audit, and I am going to invite John Mason in. You may have picked up from the evidence that we have taken, cabinet secretary, that there was a bit of feeling around the whole area of audit. The overall feeling was that, on the whole, we have introduced a social security system in Scotland that is considerably more caring, adaptable and flexible than previously was seen from the UK level. When it comes to audit, it seems to be quite harsh some of the expectations. I wonder if you could comment on that. As I have looked at the evidence on that, I will continue to repeat the point that we absolutely have to do everything based on dignity, fairness and respect. That includes how we do our audit. Audit is exceptionally important due to our requirement, quite rightly, to ensure that we are using public funds correctly. I would point to the evidence, for example, by Audit Scotland, that is quite rightly ensuring that the agency has in place correct auditory functions to look at that. We have looked very carefully at the options around audit. We have not gone for a complete replica of what the DWP does, although we have looked at that because there are lessons to learn from the systems that are currently in place. I would say to one of the overarching concerns that people have about the requirement. Audit is not about tackling fraud, but, as you do an audit, you may see information about a case that may lead to a concern that there may be fraud. If you had a system of audit that was entirely voluntary, I would suggest that, if you are carrying out fraud, you are not going to volunteer for that system. On that basis, what you will have is, in essence, a self-selecting sample of people. That does not give us the ability or the agency the ability to carry out a full auditory process. We did look at different types of ways that could be done. We have undertaken a desk-based review on random sample of cases, desk-based reviews under a random sample with voluntary interviews, but I have given you, I hope, Mr Basin the slight difficulty with that. We also looked at a desk-based review on random sample of cases following that up with a mandatory interview. The aspect again that I reassure people about is what happens around that auditory process. Those are where the really important safeguarding measures come into place, about how we do not just take away somebody's benefit if they do not engage, how we ensure that we work with a client. We understand the importance of the audit process, but that is again done in a supportive fashion. I hope that that gives you a high-level explanation of why we have come to the decisions that we have and why I have gone through that process that I have to go through with the detailed suggestions that we have. Of course, if there are particular points that you want to pick up on, I am happy to do so or bring in my colleagues on those. I accept that it is difficult, and we are trying to get a balance here and not go to either extreme being too harsh or being too easygoing. I just wonder about the purpose of the audit. Audit to me, which is part of my training, if I was auditing Marks and Spencer's, I would go in there and be looking at their systems. If I found that they had been selling their shirts for the wrong price, I would be ticking them off and that would go in the audit report, but I would not be going to the customers and saying, give me the extra £10 that you did not pay for that shirt. If the purpose is to audit and see how social security Scotland is doing, that is fine, and let us do that. To then, it seems to move on, and you can reassure me that that is not really going to happen. I mean, if it is then moving on, and just because somebody has not engaged, they have been through some bad experience in the first place, they have probably had a whole process, as we have already heard, appealing and getting the benefits they are due. If they then just do not respond when they have done nothing wrong, of course we do not know if they have done nothing wrong, but if they just do not respond and then they get their benefits cut, that just seems to me about her. What I would point to is that I hope to try and reassure you on this point, is that it is important that we do audit. One of the reasons it is also important to audit is to ensure that correct decisions are being made as well. That is important to ensure that the system is not being overly generous, but it is giving 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 as well. What I would say again in terms of the safeguarding is that they will be told absolutely at the outset any individual that has taken part in that, that they have the right to support and to be signposted to how to access that. Individuals very importantly can ask to have a request withdrawn if they think they have good reason for that, and again happy to work with stakeholders about what the reasoning may be for those. If a request is not withdrawn and the individual does not respond, what we are very keen to do is work with stakeholders to see what types of safeguarding measures they think they should be in place. What I would reassure is that this is not one letter out and if you do not respond within a certain small time period then you have had it and you get your benefit stopped. Nobody will have their benefit stopped. You may have your payment suspended but that is very different to having your benefit stopped. We are also very keen to ensure that the agency continues to make contact with the individual. They will of course be signposted that if they have got past all those attempts to contact and are still not contacting the agency that people will have the right to challenge any suspension, which is not an absolute hard stop of a benefit. Of course the suspended assistance will be backdated if they then respond to a request. We will continue to work with the client to get the information from them that we require for an audit but do so in a very supportive fashion. What we are trying to do through this is to ensure that we have a full auditory process but with enough safety nets, enough safeguarding and enough support available to ensure that we do not get into the position, as she said, of someone who has had very difficult circumstances or who is going through very difficult circumstances at that point, having payments affected. Unless we make this a voluntary scheme, which I have explained the severe difficulties with, there has to be some sort of process that we have in place that requires an individual to take part. What we are looking at is the balance, I suppose. Again, I am very happy to work with stakeholders because I recognise that this is an area of concern. I recognise that this is an area where people could fall through a safety net. What I would like to do is work with stakeholders that have raised the concerns to see what more we can do, not necessarily in the face of the bill but when we are looking at the guidance and the implementation of that through the agency, that we are building in the types of safeguarding measures that people would quite rightly expect us to have. That is very helpful to be fair. Is it right to say that this part was not consulted on when the bill was being prepared? No, it was not in the full consultation. What we have done is, of course, try and consult with the stakeholders that will be most impacted by this or have the most obvious relation with clients who will be impacted by it. There has been targeted consultation, but it was not part of the full public consultation that was part of the bill. Did I pick up in your opening remarks that you said you were either open to or thinking of amendments in this space at stage 2? I am very happy to look at that, but it is also important to look at what is not necessarily right for the face of the bill but what should be within the guidance. We will look to see what more can be done. Again, as part of the reassurance that we have undertaken to make an amendment to the bill at stage 2, requiring a public consultation prior to the exercise of the regulation making powers. That, for example, will allow us to look at the groups that are exempted from the requirements for audits. Again, that is a very genuine attempt to build in some of those safeguarding measures to ensure that we are taking time to get this right. We are taking time to consult and to work through with stakeholders as one example who would be exempt from the auditory process. There will be quite rightly some people who absolutely should be exempt from the process. It just cannot move to the full fact that it is voluntary. I am moving on to theme 7, which is compensation recovery. I am going to invite Bob Dorison. Good morning, Cabinet Secretary. In England and Wales, the Department of Work and Pension has already seen a system of compensation recovery. For those who will not be aware of what that is, if a person receives benefits as a direct result of injury action or disease but later gets compensation, then the compensator has to reimburse the WP for those benefits. I welcome that a similar system is going to be brought into place in Scotland in relation to the bill that we are scrutinising. If the compensator does not comply, the bill will make it a criminal offence, but the power to make it a criminal offence will be in regulation and in secondary legislation and will not be on the face of the bill. That was of significant concern to the DPLR committee and is not the normal way that those matters are conducted. I am just wondering what the Scottish Government's position is, why you have not taken the option to put the bill on the face of the bill. I mentioned it in my original statements, but I will put on record my thanks to the committee for the due diligence that they have paid as always to the bill, particularly on this issue. I hope to 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 those offences. To that end, it is our intention to carry out an in-depth engagement with all the relevant stakeholders, including those from the insurance industry themselves, before we clearly lay out the details of such offences in regulations. One of the reasons for the approach that we have taken is to ensure that there is further and on-going consultation and work with those that would be directly impacted by the offences that are in the bill. We intend to ensure that the details of the offences created align with the investigatory provisions, which will also be in secondary legislation and apply appropriately to corporate bodies. It is about linking up different regulations to ensure that they are compatible with each other and coherent. Of course, the Parliament still has the opportunity to reject us if it does not appreciate what has come forward at that point, but it is not an unprecedented approach. A similar power was taken to make provision about offences that are already contained in the 2018 act, so it follows on from something that has already been undertaken in the 2018 act when we talk about offences. That is helpful, cabinet secretary. I am not suggesting that this has not been done in the past. The DPLF Committee looks at this on a week-to-week basis across all the legislation of the Government and it stood out as an outlier in relation to the approach that the Government would normally take. I think that we need to just mirror some of those concerns. If Parliament did decide that they wished this to win the face of the bill, I am very open minded either way, cabinet secretary, has work taken place already to flesh out what should be on the face of the bill? Importantly, the consultation has not taken place to the level that we would want to do it, or I would think that stakeholders would wish it to be done. Of course, they will speak quite rightly for themselves on this issue, but at this point I would feel much more comfortable with that consultation being undertaken rather than it being on the face of the bill. We will have to reflect on that. It may be as we are or we are, and secondary legislation might be the most appropriate vehicle, given what you have just said, cabinet secretary. Can you confirm for me what the level of parliamentary scrutiny will be for any secondary legislation in terms of negative or superaffirmative, so we can know what the level of parliamentary scrutiny there will be, given that it may not be on the face of the bill? We are just checking. My belief is that it is affirmative, but I want to absolutely make certain of that, and if it is not, then we can make it affirmative if it is not. My goodness, cabinet secretary, do you mean that I have actually got the Government movement within seconds if it is not affirmative? That is a first. We can certainly check that, Mr Doris, in case my assumption that I am working on is incorrect. You can claim it as a win, either way. I am not really that bothered, cabinet secretary, but if you can write us just to confirm that, that would be helpful. We did hear that there could be a little bit of uncertainty in relation to the appeal routes for recovery of Scottish and DWP benefits. I think that that was an understanding that there could be a separate Scottish system as opposed to a partnership agreement or an agency agreement with DWP. So it would be helpful if you could just clarify what that process will look like and whether you intend a partnership or an agency agreement or otherwise. 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. It is a long-standing approach that has been agreed with stakeholders. I am not entirely sure that I will caveat that. I am not sure that it was agreed when it went through with the DWP that it was agreed with stakeholders, but it is certainly understood by stakeholders. I do not see a reason for change from that point. I am happy to reassure stakeholders that there will be consistency. We absolutely are looking at that consistency because we want to reduce complexity and uncertainty. I think that that is an important aspect. Sometimes change and difference is necessary and sometimes it is not. I do not see a reason for that in this case. Can I just double-check? Does that mean that the system may mirror the DWP route that would necessarily be an agency agreement? 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 think that that was the clarity that witnesses wanted, so I think that they will welcome that. I did have other questions, convener, but it is not related to that. I do not know if there is any time to do that. We will go through them, and if we have time, I will come back. With your indulgence, convener, I will say that it is an informative procedure for the regulations. I should just very briefly follow-up in that. Again, we will have to reflect whether that is the right level of parliamentary scrutiny as well. To put that on the record, I was not suggesting that that would be the right level of scrutiny. I just wanted to know what the level of scrutiny would be. Now we are going to move on to theme 8, which is SCOSS, and I am going to invite Ross McCollum. I should have said hello to the cabinet secretary and my first questions are my apologies for not welcoming her to the committee with the team. In a written submission, CPAC pointed out that the bill includes a large number of new regulation making powers, which are not added to SCOSS's remit. They say that all should be subject to statutory scrutiny by SCOSS. Why does the Scottish Government consider that SCOSS scrutiny is not necessary specifically for compensation recovery or information for audit? As I mentioned in my opening remarks, I am more than happy to bring forward amendments at stage 2 to extend the regulations that SCOSS will be more than happy to look at extending the role for SCOSS for some of the regulations that we have talked about today. I absolutely do recognise and am greatly appreciative of the role that SCOSS has played from day 1 in looking at regulations. I am very keen to ensure that its role is expanded, changed and developed as the system for social security moves on. Clearly, the committee will be aware that there was an independent review of SCOSS Government's arrangements and so on. That did identify some changes to ensure that SCOSS was resilient and fit for purpose for the future. The bill looks at implementing the recommendations of that, but I am happy to look at stage 2 amendments to bring more powers into the bill for the scope of the formal SCOSS scrutiny following the stakeholder contributions at stage 1. I am also following a very recent letter that I have had from the SCOSS boards themselves. I am working through all the details of what has come through from SCOSS very recently. I am going to ensure that I go through that in detail with my officials. However, we intend to move forward at stage 2 and I will bring forward aspects around the care experience assistance and the other areas that I mentioned earlier. Thank you very much. I look forward to looking at those amendments. Finally, I am moving on to the last theme, which is financial memorandum. I am going to invite Katie Clark. Thank you very much and welcome Cabinet Secretary. The name of the bill is value for money. Compensation recovery could cost up to £5.1 million per year and estimated income is up to £5.5 million a year. What is the financial justification for bringing in compensation recovery? First of all, I think that it is a very important principle that we should have within our system. What I have alluded to in my opening remarks is that recovery of compensation is a very specialised function. What we have looked at as I have drawn the financial memorandum together is what we can look at in terms of what happens in Northern Ireland, what happens in other systems to look and compare as best we can about what a Scottish system would look like. That has led to a very wide range of potential estimated implementation and running costs. That is because it is very important that I look at, as we are required to do, the overestimations that are built into delivery. It is important that we base the financial memorandum on that basis. The detailed analysis of the requirements that will be necessary to carry out the function that includes working with the DWP will allow us to have a much more accurate account of the costs once that work has been undertaken with the DWP. Of course, we will be happy to provide committee with further information on that, should the bill become an act and we move forward with the compensation scheme. I would point to the fact that it is also important that the delivery of the function is an important function of a social security system. I am quickly going to bring in Bob Doris and Jeremy Balfour for some supplementaries and then we will conclude our business. Thank you, convener. As a supplementary and many many others' line of questioning earlier on, it was in relation to whether the redetermination process should remain or whether individuals appealing should go straight to the tribunal service. It is fair to say that we are conflicting evidence from third sector and advice groups on that. Some people thought that it was vital that the redetermination process stayed and others thought that it got in the way. No one was speaking with one voice in the sector in relation to that cabinet secretary. I was wondering if redeterminations were, if you like, running tandem with the tribunal service. Let me just say a little bit what I mean about that, convener. If there are no redeterminations and things would stay straight to a tribunal, I think pretty quickly Social Security Scotland would do a very quick review of any application to make sure they got it right in the first place. A lot of applications to the tribunals would never get there anyway. Is it possible to have a hybrid system? Is that something that the Government could think about? I am not saying that that is well thought out. I am not saying that there are unintended consequences, but we are progressing this legislation as a hybrid system possible. Is that something that the Government could give consideration to? I see where the member is coming from on that. I suppose what I would say is that if you are running any systems at the same time, then you are still running and therefore paying for two systems. What you are not getting, and I would point to the difference between our review and a redetermination. One of the important aspects that we brought in with Social Security Scotland was that a redetermination is not just checking for errors in the original decision, but it is a fresh look at the entire case. The member would suggest that you are bringing in something that we do not do within the system, which is a review process that is not as thorough as a redetermination. Our review is more like what happens with your DWP session at the moment. As we discussed when the bill was going through, there are downsides to that way of working. That is why we have something very different within the 2018 act, which is a full redetermination, which is a look at the case entirely with an entirely different team to ensure that it is just taken very much with a fresh pair of eyes. I would caution that there are downsides to the public purse, but also to what the individual would be getting from that. That would be why I am my initial thoughts on that as I work through that, as I speak, is hesitancy about that approach. Cabinet Secretary, the reason for asking the question is to draw attention to the fact that the sector does not speak with one voice and what the best system should look like. Maybe that is something that the Government can reflect on to see if improvements can be made. Part of the sector says that redeterminations get in the way and others say that it is really important. We want to make sure that all people are serviced appropriately by whatever system we have in place. That is such an important point again. I go back to the thing that I have mentioned a few times now, which is about continuous improvement. We are now working through the processes, although still very small in number, given the number of cases around redeterminations and appeals. I appreciate that the committee is looking at that in other evidence. I believe that you have the agency, the tribunal service and so on, coming next week on that. That is a very important aspect. We will also ensure that we are looking to continuously improve what that looks like, whether it has to be done on the face of a bill or whether it is about practices. That is something that I am sure the committee will investigate, but I wish to do so by the agency on the operational matters that it has. Thank you very much. Jeremy, would you like to come in? There are two quick questions. This is an opportunity to reflect on how things have gone over the past five or six years. One of the areas that seems to be concerned around some of the evidence that we took was in regard to the information that has been recorded so that we can monitor that. Is that something that you might think should be in the bill where we may be more for statutory duty that information is recorded so that we can see how that is going because there is quite a lot of evidence that is not happening at the moment? I do not think that that needs to be on the face of the bill. The reason for that would be that there is a requirement for flexibility because the needs for that will change. In the future, when we have all moved on to other things, Mr Balfour, we are maybe obligating the agency to collect information by statute that they do not necessarily want to do. For example, we have entirely changed a benefit but we have something in legislation that requires them to collect information. It is quite a blunt instrument. The basis of the questioning is the fact that we need to ensure that we are gathering the right information. I would absolutely accept that that is correct and that this is a process that we are in development with the agency. I know that the agency themselves are keen to have more management information than the systems that are in place to allow the collecting of that management information for their own benefit and therefore for the client's benefit. I would say that I do not think that that needs to be on the face of the bill, partly because of that inflexibility. I think that you are pushing at an open door, Mr Balfour, on the fact that we all agree that there is more that needs to be collected. I am always happy to have suggestions from the committee about where that is because the agency and I often have discussions with the chief executive and the senior team on the level of management information that we have and what is possible to publish to allow full transparency on that. I sometimes have frustrations that at this point in time we cannot publish as much as I would like to be able to demonstrate how well the system is going. I will reflect on those comments. The second area is that we took some evidence in regard to the first-tier tribunal hearings. As you will reflect, we looked to us quite carefully when we put it. It was very much meant to be client-led whether that tribunal was going to be heard overly or on paper or face-to-face. I am interested in having an FOI came back just a couple of days ago, which said that there had only been one in-person tribunal in the whole of Scotland in the last year. We have heard evidence that people are finding it difficult to get that face-to-face tribunal. Clearly, it is there in the bill that that should be the person's choice. If it is not happening in practice, do we need to strengthen that legislation to make sure that people are getting what they want? Not being forced to go, but if they want to go, that is an absolute right and can we strengthen that in the legislation? I am certainly very happy to reflect on that following your question today. I would perhaps direct you if I could to maybe some of those that are coming to give you evidence and those and those from the tribunal service, and it is perhaps a matter for them rather than from Government. I hear what you are saying, Mr Balfour. I hear that you feel that that is a concern. I am happy to reflect on the evidence or the question that you have given me today and also listen carefully to the evidence next week, if that is something that I am presuming that you may bring up again and to reflect on what happens next week. I think that that is an issue for the tribunal rather than for Government. Thank you very much Cabinet Secretary and thank you to your officials as well today. This concludes this evidence session and our public business for today. The committee will now consider all the evidence received at stage 1 and report its findings in May.