 Good morning, and welcome to the second meeting of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee in 2022. Our first item of business today is a decision to take item 4 in private. I'm just looking around my virtual rooms just to make sure that colleagues are all agreed. Are we all agreed? Thank you very much indeed. The committee will now take evidence on the Scottish child payment regulations 2020 and the disability assistance for children and young people Scotland regulations 2021, miscellaneous amendments, regulations 2022. I welcome to the meeting, Ben Macpherson, MSP, Minister for Social Security and Local Government, Neil Wilson, disability benefits policy manager and Kirsten Siminela Fever, principal legal officer at the Scottish Government as well. I'd now like to invite the minister to please make an opening statement. Mr Macpherson, please. Thank you, convener. Good morning, members, and a happy new year to you all. This is the first committee session I've attended of two in Ms Don. I'm grateful for the opportunity to meet with the committee to discuss those regulations, which reflect our continuing commitment to make improvements and to listen closely to stakeholders to provide a system that meets people's needs. The committee is aware of the Scottish Government's strong commitment to promoting benefit take-up. The regulations before us today are important in the rare occasions that suspending assistance is beneficial for the individual involved and or the integrity of Scotland's social security system. The Scottish Government is seeking to introduce the power to suspend assistance in a narrow set of circumstances where it is vital to protect people who rely on our payments. Furthermore, it is also vital to ensure an efficient social security system for Scotland. The power to suspend assistance in a narrow set of circumstances will help to avoid unnecessary overpayments and to protect vulnerable individuals from risk of abuse. Putting those measures in place is also part of being a responsible Government. For clarity, the regulations before us today apply only to child disability payment and Scottish child payment. We are seeking to introduce powers to suspend adult disability payment in a narrow set of circumstances as part of the main regulations for that form of assistance, which we will discuss next week. It is important to recognise that we are not seeking or planning to take the same approach as the DWP mentions. Let me be very clear that the effect of those regulations before us is not intended to be punitive or make clients worse off. We have consistently chosen to limit when we can suspend assistance. The regulations enable us to suspend payments if an individual fails to provide us with information that we need to decide if they should get child disability payment or Scottish child payment within a reasonable and appropriate time period. In accordance with the social security guidance, individuals will have a minimum of 20 days to provide information. Moreover, when we request information, we will encourage individuals to ask for more time to provide the information if they need it. Take-holders like the child poverty action group, Citizens Advice Scotland and Inclusion Scotland told us of the importance of suspending payments in the circumstances covered in those regulations, because some vulnerable individuals may not take action until they see that they are paying. However, suspending payment rather than ending assistance ensures that individuals have a better opportunity to engage with social security Scotland rather than immediately losing their entitlement. The regulations also allow for suspension of payments where ministers pay assistance to a third party. That could be to become on from the risk of financial abuse or the third party of being unable to continue receiving payments. For child disability payment, payment may also be suspended where a third party is receiving payment, but it is not engaging with Social Security Scotland when the child turns 16 and becomes responsible for managing their own entitlement. Those regulations also introduce a number of key safeguards. That includes the right to request the review of the decision to suspend. Our case managers must also consider the individual's financial circumstances before deciding to suspend. That is essential to avoiding unnecessary hurt. As well as the provisions on suspension of assistance, we have taken the opportunity in those regulations to also make minor miscellaneous amendments to the child disability payment and the Scottish child payment regulations in order to give full effect to the original policy intent. I welcome the opportunity to assist the committee with its consideration of the regulations and I look forward to any questions that members may have. Thank you very much indeed, minister, for that helpful introduction. I will now move to questions from colleagues. First, I have Marie McNair, followed by Miles Briggs, please. Marie McNair, please. Thank you. Good morning, convener, and good morning, minister. The introduction of the suspension option is a welcome move away from the DWP position, as you have already said, that can often see benefit entitlement completely stopped in a new claim required. The universal private is notorious for that. How confident are you that claimants, particularly those who are vulnerable, will adequately assist to respond to the needs for further information? Thank you to Marie McNair for that question. That is an issue that we have considered significantly in the process of the development of the regulations. In response to the Scottish recommendations, the member will be aware that, in response to Scotland, we extended the position so that we were committing to a minimum of 28 days for people to respond to requests for information. I stress the point that that is a minimum, because, as I stated in the opening statement, we will also encourage individuals to ask for more time if that is required. Social Security Scotland will extend this period when it is reasonable to do so, having regard to the individual's circumstances. We will also withdraw requests for information if they no longer appear reasonable. For example, because the individual tells Social Security Scotland that they do not have the requested information, we will explain clearly to individuals what information is being requested and why. As I said, individuals will be encouraged to contact Social Security Scotland if they think that they will have trouble providing the requested information within the requested time and, importantly, if a suspension would likely cause hardship. Maureen MacNeill Thank you, minister. What efforts will be made by Social Security Scotland to make support networks aware of the suspension provision and what it will look out for when supporting people to respond? We are engaged with the relevant stakeholders on this matter, and that will be an ongoing point of consideration. Guidance will be made public. The advocacy service that we are providing will be there to support people, and part of that support will include making sure that people are aware of the circumstances around how long they have to respond and that they are encouraged to contact Social Security Scotland if they are having any difficulties in that way. I assume that that is the conclusion of Maureen MacNeill's questions. I bring in Miles Briggs, please. Miles Briggs Thank you, convener. Minister, good morning to the panel as well. Thank you for joining us this morning. I wanted to ask what the Government's plans are with the aim to overpayment which would build up as a result of continuing to pay some of the benefits and, specifically, a question around advantages and disadvantages around self-assessment. Minister? Thanks, Mr Briggs. This is a really important area. It is also important to why we are introducing these regulations and that we want to avoid overpayments as much as possible and to make sure that there is engagement with individuals and part of those regulations is encouraging that contact and engagement to avoid overpayments building up. With regard to self-assessment compared with an objective test, of course, there is a point of consideration with SCOSS and, also, a number of years ago, during the passage of the Social Security Administration Tribunal membership, the Scotland Bill now act. In that period, as members will be aware, almost all stakeholders express to view that there must be consideration of hardship when a decision is made to suspend assistance, and we have, of course, agreed with that. However, if the individual self-assesses that suspending payment of assistance would place them in hardship, there was a strong ambition from stakeholders, rightly in my view and our view, that ministers will not suspend assistance when requesting information is not provided. All of that is considered. The benefit of the self-assessment approach is that suspension decisions will be straightforward for Social Security Scotland to process, but it should result in very few requests for a review of the decision to suspend. We are not convinced that an approach of Social Security Scotland to objectively assess hardship would be proportionate, given the added complexity that it would introduce, because assessing hardship would take longer, and that delay feeding into Mr Briggs's work question could lead to more overpayments in some cases. As I said, the objective test would be more onerous on the individual and would be less satisfactory for them as clients. The objective test, compared with the self-assessment approach, would be more administratively complex for Social Security Scotland. All of that is considered, we believe, that objectively assessing hardship would cause delay, which would lead to overpayments doing, and therefore the self-assessment approach is the best position to take with regard to those matters. Miles Briggs, thank you for that. I have two other points and two questions. If someone fails to engage with a review of the disability benefit, at what point in the new system will that provide information result in a benefit potentially being stopped? Of course, there are a number of variables here as to how the individual responds to the request for information. If they respond within the 28 days stating that that would place them in hardship or that they are not able to provide the information, that would initiate a further process of engagement with the individual on their circumstances. Just to be clear, suspension will be used as a last resort by Social Security Scotland. That will be where an individual has failed to engage over a minimum of a 28-day period. Of course, when assistance is suspended, Social Security Scotland will issue the individual with a notice explaining that their entitlement to assistance may be ended if the requested information is not provided within 28 days of the notice. Ending an individual's benefit will, as I said, be a last resort and will only be done if all alternative means of obtaining information have been exhausted and requested information is needed to accurately determine entitlement. Miles Greggs, before I bring in Natalie Donne. Thank you. Finally, I just wondered if the minister could update the committee with regards to workforce. We've been discussing this at length as a committee and actually on the visit with Social Security Scotland. I just wondered in terms of those professionals who will be tasked with undertaking this work, where recruitment is at and what discussions specifically have taken place. I've raised this with the minister before, with general practice, in terms of the provision of information from them and the payments and expectation for them to help provide that. Again, two important questions from Mr Greggs, which I will touch on briefly just now, but I think that it might be helpful for me to get a response from the agency for Mr Greggs as a current position. I can say that, from my very recent call with senior members of staff at the agency, which I have on a regular basis, recruitment is going very well and we're very pleased about the progress of that. Part of that recruitment is health and social care staff, and that recruitment is also been progressing in a successful manner, in a successful position. The wider engagement with health boards is in a very positive place, but I will elaborate on that further and provide the committee with an update over and above what I have just said in writing, if that would be helpful for Mr Greggs and the committee widely. In particular on the point around the compensation or the arrangements that might be in place for medical professionals providing supporting information for people's claims, I think that that would be really helpful. It was a point of interest when we met with Social Security Scotland and I think that that was at the thrust of Mr Greggs' questions, so that would be incredibly helpful. I will now bring in Natalie Dawn, please. I just want to ask, if we get to the point where an applicant's payment is suspended, I believe that they legally have to complete the review within 31 days. This seems an extremely long period of time for someone to go without their income when they might be entitled to it. Can I just clarify if they give the information earlier in that time period would that start the process of getting their payments back, or would they have to wait for the 31 days? If that is the case, would it be possible to shorten that time? I will bring Neil in a moment, but the intention is to obtain the information as quickly as possible from the individual in order to assist them. The individual circumstances will be considered by those who are making judgments in the agency on these matters. Neil, can you just give that clarity, please? Thanks, minister. When the information is requested because the purpose of requesting it is material to carry out our review, we would want to carry out the review. Once we have made the determination of entitlement, the suspension must be ended. It has already been raised, but it is in relation to the guidance around the suspension and the ending of benefits. Is that information going to be publicly available? Is that guidance will be in easy-read format so that everyone can understand it? As long as it is not full of jargon and we have it in a user-friendly format, it could lead to more uncertainty. I am just asking if the minister would consider ensuring that the guidance that is available to the public will be in an easily-readable format, that it is clear and as far as reasonably practable is easy to understand. I fully empathise with that and I think that there are really important points. We have a wider commitment to external communications being inclusive and easy to understand and consider for those who are accessing the service and the public more widely. It will be in that style and form so that people can easily understand it. The detailed decision-making guidance has been prepared, but it is being quality reviewed and going through the various processes to make sure that it is absolutely as it needs to be. It will, as I said, get published publicly once it is finalised. I think that, in order to be as expedient as possible to keep the committee up to speed, I would be happy to commit for officials to update the committee as soon as a publication date is set and then to be forthcoming in providing an appropriate copy and link to where it will be found in the public domain. I believe that that covers the athlete on's questions, so I would like to bring in Pam Duncan-Glancy next. Thank you, convener, and good morning, minister, and to all the other panel. Thank you for joining us today. I have a few questions around the area of suspension. The first question that I have is slightly less to do the specifics of that and more about the time that SCOAS has available to do with scrutiny. You will be aware that, again, SCOAS has raised concerns about the timescales in the regs. Can the minister, briefly, before I move on to my other questions, update the committee on current plans for additional resources for SCOAS? Since I last updated the committee on this work, it is on-going in terms of continued engagement with SCOAS. Of course, I cannot put it on the record enough how grateful we are for the work that SCOAS does and the input that it puts into our collective determination to build a social security system in Scotland that is as effective and as possible and is shaped in the way that it should be in order to serve those whom we wish to assist. As I have discussed before with the committee, there are commitments that the Government has made and will be fulfilling around helping SCOAS with extra secretariat resource in order to help them in terms of the practical support in order to undertake their important work. One of the challenges of 2021 was the pressure on SCOAS because of the number of regulations that it had to consider, not just within the programme but additional regulations that are merged just through circumstances and events, such as the regulations that are set in Afghanistan. There is an ambition to make sure that SCOAS has adequate resource and time to assess regulations, but we are also, as well as our programming, subject to the process of events. I can update the committee today to confirm and reassure that that resource that is coming forward to support SCOAS is in process. I will be happy to, as part of the formal follow-up that I have already committed to, provide a little more information on that, if that would be helpful for Ms Pam Duncan-Glancy and, also, for continuing widely. Thank you for that answer, minister. I would very much appreciate the follow-up information, including what that resource will be when it is expected to be in place and how much more additional staff or time will be thought by that resource. That would be excellent if the minister was able to do that sooner rather than later. I very much, as others have said, welcome the provisions in the regs to suspend payment and that they will not be punitive. I think that that approach is significantly better for people across Scotland than what has gone before it and there is no doubt about it. I really welcome that and I think that it will be much more beneficial. I also think that the longer time for people to provide information—and my colleague Natalie Dawn spoke of that a moment ago—the longer time available for people to provide information is welcome in the 28 days. However, CPAC did say in its evidence last week or the week before I was on track of time that people would probably need sometimes, in some cases, eight weeks and notwithstanding the impact that that would have on their finances as highlighted by my colleague Natalie Dawn, what has the Government taken into consideration with the timescale that you are asking people to provide information? How did it come to the conclusion that the 28 days was the number to choose as opposed to eight weeks as suggested by CPAC? I am going to bring Neil in a moment again, but I would just firstly state and re-emphasise what I have laid out from the opening statement almost this morning. The 28 days is a minimum and it will be important for those who are engaging with cases to take into consideration individual circumstances. For example, if the individual says that they do not have the information or that they cannot provide it within that time period, that will be taken in good faith in order to make sure that adequate time is therefore applied in order for the individual to provide the information that is required and for other considerations to be undertaken in order to help the individual to acquire what the agency needs in order to make the decision. I will bring Neil in now to touch on that further because he is, of course, considered that through the process of this and since the passing of the 2018 act. It is in the client's interest and the agency's interest to have the determination resolved as soon as possible, but we also need to build in a reasonable amount of time for the individual to provide the information. Four weeks was seen as a reasonable amount as a minimum period that would allow the individual to seek advice from independent advice if required. As the minister has said, it is a minimum period and we absolutely would take individual circumstances into account. Thank you for that. That is really helpful. The point on it being a minimum period is really useful and I know that people will appreciate that, so thank you for setting that out. The final question that I have is about advocacy provision. There is no advocacy provision at the point of suspension. Judith Robertson from the SHRC said in her evidence that people with mental ill health might find it difficult to engage in the suspension process or during the review of a person's entitlement. Can the Government set out what it will do specifically to ensure that the system of suspension does not negatively impact on some groups? Can you set out your thinking about advocacy and why a legal rights advocacy does not extend to suspension? I want to reassure the committee that advocacy will be available to all clients who self-certify as having a disability, including individuals who are applying for or in receipt of the Scottish child payment. The advocacy position is strong. Kerstin, do you want to come in and say a bit more about that? The right to advocacy is enshrined in the 2018 act. It is in connection with the determination of the individual's entitlements to be given assistance, and that means any type of assistance. It is mainly in connection with making applications where a person might need assistance in that scenario, but it would be in relation to any type of determination that they would be able to receive advocacy if that determination was working out how much the assistance that they were entitled to be given. It can be used in a couple of situations, but it is not necessarily used upon the point of when a suspension is considered to be made, because a suspension does not actually take entitlement away from the person. It simply stops payments until information is gathered to ensure that they are on the right level of assistance. It is in relation to entitlement to assistance being given rather than to other parts that happen during the process of being entitled. I am still not 100 per cent clear if someone would be able to access advocacy at that point. I take the point that advocacy can be about entitlement, but suspension is very much about entitlement. I understand that the rules on suspension will not be in place if the award is looking to increase. It is only when it is looking to either stop or continue. I feel that advocacy is going to be crucial at that particular point, and we urge the Government to make it clear that advocacy would be available to people at that point. Gerson, are you able to give some clarity on the legal position? The right to advocacy continues when decisions are being made on a person's entitlement to assistance. If it is at the point where a decision is being made that the person is either entitled to more or to less or to no assistance, then advocacy would be available. Thank you. That is helpful. I have no further questions for this part. I would like to bring in Jeremy Balfour, who I believe has a follow-up to a previous question. Jeremy Balfour, please. It is really just to pick up a bit further, and I suspect that you may want to write to us rather than answer us today. As regard to the medical approach that we will get from consultants, GPs and other medical professions, we did have a letter back from Social Security Scotland a few weeks ago. It was unclear to me whether there was a legal obligation, or had there been a contract set up between medical professions if somebody likes to get medical evidence, and how much that will cost either the individual or the agency whether there is a set fee. My experience previously has sometimes been very difficult to get medical evidence because of the pressure that medical professions are under. I wonder if you could give us a wee bit more information today on writing on whether a legal obligation has been set up between doctors, nurses and other medical professions to provide that information. What happens if a GP turns around and says, I won't provide that information for whatever reason? I appreciate that that question is relevant here, but it is also relevant to adult disability payment which will be discussed next week. In the interests of time and from that wider perspective, if Jeremy Balfour is in agreement, I would like to take that away and either update the committee on it next week or provide an answer in writing whatever is preferable to the member and or the committee. I would say just for reassurance that formal arrangements are in place on all of these matters, but I can elaborate on that either in writing or in future. I am grateful to the minister for that. I would be excited because I wasn't at all understanding that there was anything set up between that, so that would be helpful to get more information. Just a final question, just in regard to the suspension earlier. Obviously, if in the end the agency does take away a benefit that there is a right of appeal, that can take a number of weeks if not months. Can the minister, as we assure me, that if the person was successful, all the payments would be back-dated? Is there any mechanism set up to fast-track the type of appeals that people are often financial crisis? During the period, I will bring officials in to clarify that absolutely, but the individual would receive short-term assistance, which of course is innovative and provided here in Scotland and not in the DWP system. Neil, do you want to elaborate on that briefly? Thank you, minister, yes. They would not receive a back-dated amount, but, as you say, they would have been receiving short-term assistance throughout the period of review, so they would be no worse off. On Mr Balfour's last question, I stated that the arrangements are in place, the nature of the arrangements between the agency and practitioners and health boards, I will set out. I did not want to… Mr Balfour talked about a formal position and I just want to make sure that I am clear that I will elaborate on the wider circumstances of that engagement with practitioners and health boards as a follow-up. Before we bring in Emma Roddick, is there any further question from you, Mr Balfour? No, thank you, convener. That should be done. Thank you. Emma Roddick, please. Good morning, convener. I will not be the only person who is already getting case work from people with active DLA claims who are confused about whether they should be applying for a CDP in hoping to end their DLA claim as soon as possible. How does the minister plan to communicate the potential dangers around stopping a current claim to move to CDP faster to current DLA claimants? Does he have any guidance on how long people can expect to wait to be moved across? With CDP, of course, we are undertaking case transfer as quickly as we can. When we launched a disability payment and, similarly, as we move towards launching adult disability payment, our strong advice is for people to wait until they are transferred, because that will be a better experience for them. It will be done seamlessly and social security Scotland will manage the process. We are keen to stress to people that they should wait until case transfer is undertaken. In terms of whether individuals are choosing to end a DLA or PIP award in order to claim CDP or ADP, that is always an individual's choice, but our concern is that, in doing so, they are exposing themselves to the risk that a carefully managed case transfer programme avoids. For example, if someone bypasses the case transfer process, they will be required to make a new application and provide information and evidence on their care and mobility again, which may cause undue stress or anxiety. Of course, there is no guarantee that the person will be awarded CDP or ADP, although it would be more likely than not, or would be paid at the same rate. There is no guarantee of that to the same account at the same time. For all those reasons, we think that it is much better if people wait until the case transfer process takes place in order to ensure that they have the best experience when moving from the DWP to Social Security Scotland. I am grateful to all those who, in third sector parliamentarians and other stakeholders who are helping to emphasise the point to people that it is much better for them if they let us manage the process of transferring their entitlement to Social Security Scotland. That will be done in a seamless manner. I thank the minister for all the detail in the response. Can I also ask what criteria are being used to prioritise moves from DLA to CDP? Is there anything that people can do to speed up that process themselves? I would be grateful if I were to elaborate exactly on that point, just to be absolutely clear. Which DLA claimants are being moved first? Within the case transfer process to child disability payment, there is a detailed process of engagement between DWP and Social Security Scotland on which batches of cases are being done in a way that is in order to make sure that we do it in a way that is coherent and professional, in terms of prioritisation based on needs or any considerations around that. That is not a relevant factor in the regard that the position is being done in a practical way, in a systematic way, in order to transfer those on disability living allowance for children to child disability payment in order to meet our completion aspiration of spring 2023 for that particular Scottish benefit. That is me. Thank you, convener. Thank you. Pam Duncan Glancy next, please. Thank you, convener. It is an extension of my colleague Emma Roddick's questions around the process for people applying. One of the things that we heard last month, I think, from Enable Scotland was that there were about 141,000 people in Scotland who are still on PIP or who lent to the PIP system who would otherwise have been eligible for ADP or child disability payment as well will be higher than that number. 55,000 of them will possibly have a mental health problem, which would mean that they would have a bit more difficulty in the PIP system, face-to-face system than they would potentially in the child disability payment or adult disability payment. I can fully understand why people might want to stop their existing claim and try to get on to a system that we are promoting in Scotland that should be kinder in that respect. One of the questions that they asked was whether or not the Government would commit to the rapid transfer of people from child disability payment and adult disability payment to child disability payment and adult disability payment from PIP who successfully made a claim during the delay period of the previous year when the full roll-out was delayed as a result of the coronavirus. Is that something that the Government would consider? It is my view that that might help to mitigate some of the concerns that you have highlighted really well in terms of the risks of stopping a current award in order to claim child disability payment or adult disability payment. Would you consider prioritising them, particularly since the Government also said that no-one would have to go through a review process once the roll-out started, that they would be reviewed by ADP or CDP, not PIP? Thanks, convener, and thanks to Pamdan Plansy for those questions. If it is agreeable to the committee and appropriate for me to state that that is a question that is again broader than the set of regulations before us today and that is particularly relevant to considerations around adult disability payment regulations that we are considering next week, I would be happy to touch on this matter next week with regard to case transfer when we consider the adult disability payment regulations. If it would be helpful for the committee at a future juncture beyond 27 January to perhaps come to the committee another time to discuss case transfer as a topic in general and beyond consideration of specific regulations, because the process and the assistance that I will have next week in terms of official representation will be better placed to touch on these matters. Thank you, convener, and thank you for your answer, minister. I take the point that the adult disability payment regulations will be coming next week. I raised it on the basis that to try and prevent the preemptive stopping of someone's claim and making a new claim within the Scottish system if we could reassure people, as well as promoting it in the way that my colleague Emma Roddick pointed out, but if we could also reassure people that there will be a system of prioritisation for those people who would have otherwise have guaranteed the review, that is why I asked it today in relation to those regulations. My final question is, how long do you expect, or does the minister, sorry, expect to take for the case transfer to take place? As I alluded to in my answer to Emma Roddick, there is no, as far as I am aware, prioritisation within the case transfer process with regard to circumstance or condition, but there are considerations with regard to case transfer around, for example, natural case transfer if people who are approaching a review date on their DWP award, for example. That is why I suggested that it might be helpful to the committee to discuss case transfer in the round at a future juncture, but I should be clear that, as far as I am aware, there is no prioritisation in the way that Pam Duncan-Glancy alluded to within the case transfer process, as things stand. As has been stated to Parliament on several occasions, we intend to have all-case transfer completed in 2025, and that is the provision of that. As well as the transfer programme of disability living allowance for children to child disability payment, we are working to complete by spring 2023. Pam Duncan-Glancy. Thank you, minister. I have no further questions. Thank you very much. Just before I want to double check to make sure that there are no further questions from any colleagues, I just wanted to seek some further clarity, minister, on the point around right to advocacy, if that is possible, please, because Scors had said in their evidence that they believed that there was not a right. However, I take what has been said by Kirsten in answer to previous questions. Perhaps it is something to fall up in writing, but just to get some absolute clarity there as to my reading of what has been said there, which is that if there is a question or a dubiety over entitlement that somebody has a right to advocacy, I just wonder if that would be possible to be confirmed, please. Yes, we can confirm that today, convener. I will just bring Kirsten in to further clarify to provide the issue of deposition on the clarity as well. However, in any circumstance where the individual's entitlement is being questioned, it will of course be entitled to advocacy as it will be available to all clients across Scotland who are certified to have a disability. The position is clear. I think that the point of dubiety from the committee this morning has been in that window, that period of suspension. As Kirsten has said, advocacy is not a requirement for advocacy at that juncture. It is only if it progresses to the position of their entitlement being questioned, then, of course, the right advocacy will kick in. Kirsten, do you want to add anything further on that? Yes, thank you minister. We have some policy confirmation that the national advocacy service is that advocacy will be provided to assist individuals in connection with the suspension decision if they self-certify as having a disability. It goes above and beyond the exact point when a determination in relation to entitlement is being decided. Although section 10 says that it is in connection with the determination of entitlement, the advocacy service seems to be providing services at that point. However, what we could do is write to the committee and confirm the exact points when advocacy is available to people. We can add that to the letter. Thank you very much. That would be helpful. I think that the points that the minister and I have made have provided clarity, but anything that you can follow up in writing in relation to the points and junctures would be most helpful. I thank you for that. I believe that that takes us to the conclusion of colleagues' questions, and unless anybody else is looking to come in at this stage, we will move on to agenda item 3, which is the formal debate on the motion. I remind the committee that only members and the minister may take part in the formal debate. I invite the minister now to move the motion, S6M-02786, that the social justice and social security committee recommends that the Scottish child payment regulations 2020 and the disability assistance for children and young people of Scotland regulations 2021 miscellaneous amendments regulations 2022 draft be approved. Thank you minister. Do any members wish to speak in the debate on the motion? Please type R in the chat box at this stage if you would wish to come in at this point. I am allowing for some expansion to allow colleagues' time. If that is what they wish, I do not believe that anybody does wish to come in. In which case, the question is that motion S6M-02786 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. That is very helpful. Thank you very much indeed that motion is therefore approved. I invite the committee to agree that the clerks and I will produce a short factual report of the committee's decisions and arrange to have it published. Colleagues, content for that approach to take place as previous. Thank you very much. Thank you very much indeed to the minister and to Neil and Kirsten for coming along this morning as well. Your evidence has been very helpful to us and we greatly appreciate your time as always. Thank you very much indeed. I hope that you all have a lovely day.