 Good morning, and welcome to the fifth meeting of the Social Security Committee in 2018 and remind everyone to turn their mobile phones off as they may interrupt the broadcasting. No apologies have been received for today's meeting. There is only one item on the agenda, the consideration of social security bill at stage 2. The deadline for lodging amendments has passed. The martial listing groupings cover all remaining amendments, and we will continue where we left off last week. There are 23 groups of amendments up to the end of the bill, and we have around until 11.30 this morning, but we will have an opportunity to complete today if we get through them all, but unlikely. Let everyone know that we will be pressing on with that today. I welcome the minister to committee again this morning with our accompanying officials, and we will now start stage 2 proceedings. I want to draw members' attention to the fact that amendments 69 and 166 appear in the wrong order on the martial list. Amendments 69 should be deposed off before amendment 166. When we reach that point proceedings, I will call amendment 69 before moving to amendment 166, and I will remind members again when we reach that point. I call amendment 22, in the name of the minister, who is already debated with amendment 20, and I ask the minister to move formally. I call amendment 22A, in the name of Mark Griffin, who is already debated with amendment 20, and I ask Mark Griffin to move or not move. I call amendment 22B, in the name of Mark Griffin, who is already debated with amendment 20, and I ask Mark Griffin to move or not move. I call amendment 22C, in the name of Mark Griffin, who is already debated with amendment 28, and I ask Mark Griffin to move or not move. I ask the minister to press or withdraw amendment 22, and the question is that amendment 22 be agreed, are we all agreed? I call amendment 23 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 20 and ask the minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 23 be agreed, are we all agreed? I call amendment 66 in the name of Jeremy Balfour, already debated with amendment 64 and ask Mr Balfour to move or not move. We now move to the first grouping today, which is on means testing, and I call amendment 184 in the name of Mark Griffin, grouped with amendments 185, 186, 187, 25A, 188, 27A, 190 and 30A. I invite Mr Griffin to move amendment 184 and speak to all the amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I move amendment 184 in my name. Amendments 188, 190, 27A and 30A would ensure that disability and employment injuries benefits cannot be means tested by the current or future governments. That would replicate the current policy for both which are not currently means tested, and for disability assistance that would enshrine in law the protection offered in both the SNP and Labour holloyhood manifestos, which stated that we will protect disability benefits and ensure that they remain non-steam means tested, and disability benefits will be rights based, not means tested. On keeping with the Labour, SNP and Tory 2017 manifesto commitments, I am also seeking to ensure that winter fuel payments remain universal through amendments 184, 188 and 25A. All those amendments are supported by Citizens Advice Scotland. I feel that there is a risk that a reduction in winter fuel payment or a restriction on who receives it could result in a loss of income for some consumers and a universal approach within the whole population is the most effective and efficient means of achieving what I think is the desired outcome for all of us, which is maximising incomes of low incomes and vulnerable households for help with the heat cost during the winter months. Those amendments prevent this in future governments from means testing winter fuel payments, but do not restrict the regulations from basing eligibility on other means tested benefits. That would allow the Government to continue to pay any additional premiums or top-ups to winter fuel payments using the eligibility criteria that might be based on other things such as pension credit or council tax reduction or housing benefit. I would ask committee members to support the amendments in my name in this group. I welcome our policy commitments reflected on the face of the bill and support all the amendments in this group. I ask Mr Griffin to wind up our press amendment. I simply press amendment 184. The question is that 184 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. I call amendment 185 in the name of Mark Griffin, already debated with amendment 184. Mr Griffin to move or not move? Moved. The question is that amendment 185 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. I call amendment 186 in the name of Mark Griffin already debated with amendment 184. I ask Mr Griffin to move or not move? Moved. The question is that amendment 186 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. I call amendment 187 in the name of Mark Griffin already debated with amendment 184. I ask Mr Griffin to move or not move? Moved. The question is that amendment 187 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 24 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 20. I ask the minister to move formally. Moved. I call amendment 24A in the name of Mark Griffin already debated with amendment 20. I ask Mr Griffin to move or not move? Not moved. Thank you. I call amendment 24B in the name of Mark Griffin already debated with amendment 20. I ask Mr Griffin to move or not move? Not moved. Thank you. I call amendment 24C in the name of Mark Griffin already debated with amendment 20. I ask Mr Griffin to move or not move? Gw horizontal, gyda hwnm 1981, mae erioedd gan gyffin我on warsgfaith. Fy fyddai ffrŷ.teringd diwethaf, bwch chi ni'n fymoren, wrth gy بعدai'i— Calw amendment 25, yn y name yyeiddiad ar gwaith y minister yw argy protocolaidd 20 nuidd i犯 ministersio mewn rhai iawnirtrion. Calw amendment 25A, yn y name y mae matei Gryffe oedd yn唯od edithid gan rhaid math Social cubo or ro participating in amendment 184. Asg armad 싸ngfach o pubig ddiwethafi g Theirll? Does the minister wish to press or withdraw amendment 25? The question is that amendment 25 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that schedule 3 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Amendment 67, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, already debated with amendment 182. Mr Balfour, to move, or not move? Smooth. dweud, mae'n ddweud yn iawn i ddechrau yng Nghymru 67. Mae ni dweud yn ff sjwy, peroch bob ddweud yn hynny sydd y ddweud yn eich ddweud. Felly mae'n ddweud yn bod yn y ddweud y Exig, ond ddim yn y ddechrau erioeddol. Mae'n ddweud yn llunio'r cysylltu gyda'r qwmau hissyl publiciwn i'r ddweud, ond y gyrpar, a bwysigwyr yn rhoi'r gael, ac mae'n ddweud, unrhyw yn y ddafnod y Maeg i meddwl i'r trendlion i'r ddafnod yn yithafol agrêl. Amendment 68, yn ddiwedd i Jeremy Haiddo, yn y ddweud o amendment 182, yn ben Pain ond ydi wrthwyd yn fawr neu ddysgu'r ddiwedd. Amendment 68, yn y ddysgu'r ddysgu'r ddysgu, yn ddiwedd i nhw i'r ddysgu'r ddysgu'r ddysgu'r ddysgu'r ddysgu'r ddysgu'r ddysgu'r ddysgu'r ddysgu'r ddysgu'r ddysgu'r ddysgu'r ddysgu'r Assassin in favour of Amendment 68, please raise the hands. Those against, any abstentions. The result of the division are five votes for, and four votes against, no abstentions. Amendment 68 is agreed. As, as explained earlier, I will now call amendment 69 before amendment 166. I call amendment 69 in the name of Jeremy Balfour already debated with amendment 182, and I will ask Mr Balfour to move or not move. Not move. Thank you. I will now move to the next group, which is equal consideration of different impairments, there. I'll call amendment 166, in the name of Mark Griffin, in a group on its own and I'll ask Mr Griffin to move and speak to amendment 186. amendment 1-6-6, amendment 1-6-6, in my name. Amendment 1-6-6 will ensure secondary legislation on disability assistance requires equal consideration of different disabled impairments irrespective of whether they are physical or mental. The amendment will prevent circumstances such as the recent changes to personal independence payment the UK Government have accepted are unlawful. The changes in March last year prevented people with mental health problems or psychological distress from being eligible for the enhanced mobility component for PIP. I think it was last week that the minister confirmed that the Government would ensure that the regulations were never replicated in the new Scottish system, and I welcome that commitment. That seeks to make that a reality on the face of this bill. In practice, that will prevent the introduction of regulations that create different or discriminatory eligibility criteria or levels of payment for people with mental health problems compared to people with physical health conditions and that will ask members to support amendment 1-6-6. I agree with the principle that underpins this amendment that individuals deserve to be awarded support based on their needs and the impact their condition has on their day-to-day life. That has been, as Mr Griffin said, a key and persistent criticism of the current EWP system, but that is already well rooted in the provisions of the bill, particularly as a result of the amendments that this committee has agreed that the system must promote the goals of equality and non-discrimination. The amendment as drafted achieves the opposite, I believe, of the outcomes that Mr Griffin intends. It says that regulations must not in any way differentiate between individuals on the basis of whether their impairment is physical or mental. That will prevent the Scottish Government from responding to particular needs or reconciling our operational practice in a positive way for those with mental health conditions. It also overlooks the fact that disability assistance will be given to people with a terminal illness. Assistance will be provided rapidly to individuals who suffer from a progressive and life-limiting illness, but that illness may not affect the person's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities and their needs will not be long-term. An unintended, I am sure, but critical consequence of this amendment would be to prevent disability assistance being given solely because a person is terminally ill. I would ask Mr Griffin not to press his amendment. The bill, as drafted, already allows for specific eligibility criteria to be adequately and properly dealt with in regulations. Crucially, that allows consultation with users to ensure specific needs, whether they are physical or mental, are considered and prepared for. Such regulations will be subject to scrutiny, and the Parliament will have an opportunity to offer its views on our proposals. I invite Mr Griffin to wind up and press a withdrawal amendment. Thank you. I welcome the minister's comments, particularly on the agreement of the policy intent with this amendment. I take on board the concerns particularly around how this could impact on those with a terminal illness. We will seek with the committee's permission to withdraw amendment 1-6-6. Amendment 70, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, already debated with amendment 64, and I ask Mr Balfour to move or not move. Amendment 188, in the name of Mark Griffin, already debated with amendment 184, and I ask Mr Griffin to move or not move. Amendment 26, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 20, and I ask the minister to move formally. Amendment 26A, in the name of Mark Griffin, already debated with amendment 20, and I ask Mr Griffin to move or not move. Amendment 26B, in the name of Mark Griffin, already debated with amendment 20, and I ask Mr Griffin to move or not move. I call amendment 26C, in the name of Mark Griffin, already debated with amendment 20, and I ask Mr Griffin to move or not move. I ask the minister to withdraw or press amendment 26. Amendment 26A, in the name of Mark Griffin, already debated with amendment 182, and I ask Mr Griffin to move or not move. Amendment 27, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 20, and I ask the minister to move formally. I call amendment 27A, in the name of Mark Griffin, already debated with amendment 184, and I ask Mr Griffin to move or not move. The question is that amendment 27A be agreed to are we all agreed. I ask the minister to press or withdraw amendment 27. The question is that amendment 27 be agreed to are we all agreed. The question is that section 15 be agreed to are we all agreed. Amendment 71, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, already debated with amendment 64, and I ask Mr Balfour to move or not move. Amendment 28, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 28, and I ask the minister to move formally. I call amendment 28A, in the name of Mark Griffin, already debated with amendment 20, and I ask Mr Griffin to move or not move. Amendment 28B, in the name of Mark Griffin, already debated with amendment 28 and asked Mr Griffin to move or not move? Not move. Caught amendment 28C in the name of Mark Griffin already debated with amendment 20 and asked Mr Griffin to move or not move? Not move. Thank you. Ask the minister to press or withdraw amendment 28. Thank you. The question is that amendment 28 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. And the question is that section 16 be agreed, are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. Now, I call amendment 72 in the name of Jeremy Balfour already debated with amendment 64 and asked Mr Balfour to move or not move? Not move. Thank you. I call amendment 190 in the name of Mark Griffin already debated with amendment 184 and asked Mr Griffin to move or not move? Move. I call amendment 190 in the name of Mark Griffin already debated with amendment 184 and asked Mr Griffin to move or not move? Move. The question is that amendment 190 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Thank you. I call amendment 29 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 20 and asked the minister to move formally. Moved formally. Thank you. I call amendment 29A in the name of Mark Griffin already debated with amendment 20 and asked Mr Griffin to move or not move? Not move. Thank you. I call amendment 29B in the name of Mark Griffin already debated with amendment 20 and asked Mr Griffin to move or not move? Move. Thank you. I call amendment 29C in the name of Mark Griffin already debated with amendment 20 and asked Mr Griffin to move or not move? Not move. Thank you. I ask the minister to press or withdraw amendment 29. Thank you. And the question is that amendment 29 be agreed, are we all agreed? Thank you. I call amendment 30 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 20 and asked the minister to formally move? Moved formally. Thank you. I call amendment 30A in the name of Mark Griffin already debated with amendment 184 and asked Mr Griffin to move or not move? Move. So the question is that amendment 30A be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. I ask the minister to press or withdraw amendment 30. Press. Thank you. The question is that amendment 30 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is that schedule 6 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. And the question is that section 17 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. I call amendment 73 in the name of Jerry Piffaul Balfour already debated with amendment 64 and asked Mr Balfour to move or not move? Not move. Thank you, I call amendment 31 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 20 and asked the minister to move formally? Move formally. Thank you. I call amendment 31A in the name of Mark Griffin already debated with amendment 20 and asked Mr Griffin to move or not move? Not move. amendment 31b, in the name of Mark Griffin, already debated with amendment 20 and asked Mr Griffin to move or not move? I call amendment 31c, in the name of Mark Griffin, already debated with amendment 20 and asked Mr Griffin to move or not move? I ask the minister to press or withdraw amendment 31. The question is that amendment 31 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Thank you. I call amendment 32, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 20 and asked the minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 32 be agreed, are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is that schedule 7 be agreed to, are we all agreed? And we move to the next grouping of amendments which are on housing assistance and I call amendment 152, in the name of the minister, grouped with amendments 153, 161 and 165 and asked the minister to move amendment 152 and speak to all the amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. In moving 152 and the other amendments in this group, this will allow us to deliver on our existing commitments to mitigate two areas of UK government cuts to housing assistance, the bedroom tax and the removal of housing support costs for 18 to 21-year-olds. In general, the abolition of the bedroom tax through universal credit can be regulated for using the universal credit flexibility in the Scotland Act, but in order to ensure that the support that we provide to those to whom the tax applies is not limited by the operation of the UK Government's benefit cap, we need to create an additional payment to be made in those circumstances where the award would otherwise be reduced by the cap. The amendments create the power for ministers to introduce regulations to deliver such an additional payment, which will be delivered through universal credit as part of the technical solution to mitigate the bedroom tax in full. On support for 18 to 21-year-olds, members will recall that the UK Government cut housing support for universal credit recipients aged 18 to 21. Despite creating some exemptions, it will still leave a proportion of 18 to 21-year-olds ineligible for support for housing costs. We did take immediate steps to put in place an interim solution using the Scottish welfare fund, but it was always recognised that this would be a temporary measure. Those amendments allow us to introduce housing assistance for this group to ensure that all 18 to 21-year-olds are able to get help with housing costs when they need it. I want the committee to be clear here that we are not proposing to take a general and wide-ranging power without providing details of how we intend to use it. Instead, in creating a specific new type of housing assistance in primary legislation, we are setting out two detailed instances of how that type of assistance is to be used. Amendments 161 and 165 enable ministers to introduce regulations to allow local authorities to deliver housing assistance. That will ensure that the support provided to 18 to 21-year-olds can continue to be delivered by councils as we move from the interim solution to this more permanent arrangement. The question is that amendment 152 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. I call amendment 153, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 152. I ask the minister to move formally. I call amendment 153A, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, already debated with amendment 64, and I ask Mr Balfour to move or not move. I ask the minister to press or withdraw amendment 153. The question is that amendment 153 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. We now move to the next grouping, which is short-term assistance. I call amendment 154, in the name of the minister, grouped with amendments 155A and 155B. I ask the minister to move amendment 154 and speak to all the amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I am pleased to bring forward amendments 154 and the others in response to clarifications sought by stakeholders such as the Care of Scotland and Child Poverty Action Group. Those make it clear on the face of the bill our policy intent that short-term assistance will maintain payments at the original level until the redetermination or after that the appeal to first-year tribunal has been determined. Furthermore, people will also be eligible for short-term assistance when they are seeking permission to appeal. The bill allows a person an unrestricted 31-day period to appeal. After the 31-day deadline, the permission of the first-year tribunal must be sought. The amendment ensures the availability of short-term assistance for late appeals, both while the request for permission is being considered and if permission is granted until the first-year tribunal reaches its decision on the appeal itself. Amendments 155A and 155B, in the name of Mr Balfour, reflect a wholly commendable commitment to ensuring that transitions between systems within the UK are as seamless as possible. We did touch on that previously when discussing residency amendments. As I indicated then, both the Scottish Government and the UK Government entirely share Mr Balfour's concern to get this right. Officials are working together to agree arrangements that will ensure that people transitioning between systems experience no-gaps in payment or unnecessary administrative burdens. I am not convinced that using short-term assistance to plug those gaps is the right solution. However, if short-term assistance might usefully plug particular gaps, the enabling power in the bill would allow it to be used in that way in any case. I do not recognise the issue that Mr Balfour is raising. I do recognise the issue that Mr Balfour is raising and believe that we have the tools to address it. I hope that Mr Balfour will accept my assurance that officials in both Governments are working to address his legitimate concerns, which I know are genuinely felt and will not press his amendments in this group. I thank the minister for her remarks this morning, which I think are very helpful. All of us recognise that we have a new system coming in, and we all welcome the new system. Clearly, the system is not just for Christmas, it is for many years beyond that. What we have to make sure is that we have a system that works as regulations will change and as Governments will change. What we do not want to do is end up with an individual who, perhaps, is living in Scotland, England or Wales and Northern Ireland, not moving because they feel that they are going to have this short term short for in regard to DLA or PIP or other benefits that will come forward. I do recognise that this is not a simple piece of work, and it will require both the Scottish Government and Westminster Government to work together in regard to this. I will not be moving these two amendments today, because I do hope that the Governments can work together and end up with a scheme. I also welcome amendment 154 from the minister. I think that this does plug a gap, which will be helpful for individuals as well. I think that it just gives people an extra layer of protection. I welcome 154 and I also welcome what the minister said in regard to working with the Westminster Government. Thank you, Mr Walford. Does anyone else wish to contribute to Mr McPherson? Thank you, convener. I very succinctly want to say how much I welcome this set of amendments. I think that it is extremely important that it will make sure that there is cover in order for people to have the assistance that they need as consideration is given to your tribunal and until such a determination is made by the tribunal. I also warmly welcome Jeremy Balfour's decision to withdraw his amendments, while certainly touching on some important points and issues, I think that there was some in terms of the drafting as it was. There were some concerns that I had about double claiming and definitions, and I think that a constructive approach of Governments working together and looking at this later on is absolutely right. I fully support that decision, too. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to contribute? Minister, would you like to wind up? Yes, thank you, convener. I start by expressing my gratitude to Mr Balford for raising what is an important issue, but also for accepting the concerns that we have and not pressing with his amendments. I think that, as has been said, this is an important addition to our legislative framework. It is a clear signal from us as Government and indeed from this committee that we are positively supporting individuals who wish to challenge and appeal decisions made by our new social security agency. I think that that is a very important signal to send and a very important practical step that we, I hope, will take this morning. The question is that amendment 154 be agreed and are we all agreed. The question is that section 18 be agreed and are we all agreed. I call amendment 155 in the name of the minister. I have already debated with amendment 154 and asked the minister to move formally. I call amendment 155A in the name of Jeremy Balford already debated with amendment 154 and asked Mr Balford to move or not move. I call amendment 155B in the name of Jeremy Balford already debated with amendment 154 and asked Mr Balford to move or not move. Ask the minister to press or withdraw amendment 155. The question is that amendment 155 be agreed to and are we all agreed. I call amendment 123 in the name of Adam Tomkins already debated with amendment 119 and asked Mr Tomkins to move or not move. I call amendment 124 in the name of Adam Tomkins already debated with amendment 119 and asked Mr Tomkins to move or not move. I call amendment 125 in the name of Adam Tomkins already debated with amendment 119 and asked Mr Tomkins to move or not move. I call amendment 126 in the name of Pauline McNeill already debated with amendment 4 and asked Pauline McNeill to move or not move. The question is that section 19 be agreed and are we all agreed. Thank you. We now move to the next group of amendments which is in form of application. I call amendment 204 in the name of Mark Griffin grouped with amendments 205 and 210 and asked Mr Griffin to move amendment 204 and speak to all the amendments in the group. I move amendment 204 in the name of Mark Griffin grouped with amendments 204 and 205 and 210, which have been sponsored by the child poverty action group and submitted on their advice. The amendments aim to clarify the process of making an application in relation to whether it is validly made. Whether the application is validly made should mean simply that the questions on the form or asked in a phone call have been fully answered. That is what regulation should say in relation to the manner in which an application must be made. If it is not validly made, an application can be prevented from proceeding. I think that it should be clear that only basic details should prevent an application from being accepted, not evidence that might take some time to obtain. Making that clear in the bill and regulations will ensure that processes are fit for purpose and provide certainty for people. That amendment would not require either the bill or regulations to specify exact types of information or evidence required, so it will not reduce the ability of the system to be flexible and responsive. I ask members to support the amendments in that group. I do not support Mr Griffin's amendments, which would require that the process for applying for assistance be set out in regulations. The concern may be about people's ability to prove that an application has been validly made according to the rules that were operating when the application was made. I understand that, but putting the rules into regulations is not necessary to address that issue. Courts and tribunals are able to look—sorry? Whether Mr Griffin's amendments replicate the position that it already obtains in UK law in social security regulations or whether that would be a difference from what happens in UK. In other words, is it the case that the law at the moment prescribes in legislation, primary or secondary, that what a valid application looks like? I do not think that I know the answer to that question right at the minute, Mr Tomkins. Maybe when he is winding up Mr Griffin could address that question if he knows the answer to it. Indeed. However, I know that courts and tribunals are able to look at evidence that does not take the form of regulations. Earlier in the sessions, we have asked them to look at the charter in determining cases, and it does not need to take the form of regulations for them to do that. If the agency has told the public that an application can be made in a particular way, a court or tribunal should treat an application made in that way as valid. A no doubt unintended consequence, Mr Griffin's amendments would limit judges to looking at the regulations when deciding whether an application has been validly made. If ministers wished to alter what was acceptable—for example, to address problems that were being identified through performance reviews of the agency—changes would have to wait until the regulations could be amended. Regulations bring an inflexibility that is not useful here, and there is, in my view, no gain from having them. The committee has already agreed amendments emphasising the importance of inclusive communication, helping people to take up the assistance to which they are entitled. Requiring that the rules for how people can apply be set out in regulations would, in my view, compete with those important aims. Regulations would bring a legalistic approach that would get in the way of telling people simply how to apply for assistance and adjusting requirements where that would be beneficial, nor does it really give Parliament more meaningful oversight of the rules for applying. If the committee wants to know whether the Government is fulfilling its duties to communicate inclusively and do what it can to promote take-up, it can look into what is actually happening on the ground, is set out by the commitments in the charter, drawing on evidence from experts and, most importantly, listening to people who have first-hand experience of applying for assistance. I would ask Mr Griffin not to press his amendments in this group. I am not aware of the legal situation across the UK, so I am not able to comment on Mr Thompson's question as to whether that is a replication of what already exists. I think that my instinct would probably say that it is not. I am still of the view that applicants should be given a degree of certainty to what would and would not constitute a valid application that it should be clear that, again, it should only be the basic details that should prevent an application from proceeding, and that evidence that might take some time to be obtained should not hold that up. As I said in my opening in this amendment, it would not require either the bill or regulation to specify exact types of information or evidence required, so I do not feel that it would reduce the ability of the system to be flexible and responsive and, on that basis, would press amendment 204. Mr Griffin, the question is that amendment 204 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Is that no? Sorry, there will be a division. I can ask those in favour of amendment 204 to police raise their hands. Those against. The result of the division are five votes four and four votes against, so amendment 204 has been agreed. I call amendment 205 in the name of Mark Griffin already debated with amendment 204 and asked Mr Griffin to move or not move. The question is that amendment 205 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Are we all agreed? There will be a division. I can ask those in favour of amendment 205 to police raise their hands. Those against. I call any abstentions. Mr Adam, just for clarity, I can ask those against to police raise their hands. Thank you. Any abstentions? Thank you. The result of the division are five votes four and four votes against, so amendment 205 has been agreed. We now move to the next grouping of amendment, which is further application for assistance. I call amendment 156 in the name of the minister, grouped with amendment 160, and ask the minister to move amendment 156 and speak to both amendments in the group. Thank you. Amendments 156 and 160 are technical amendments to correct an unintended effect of the restriction placed on repeat applications at section 20 of the bill. The types of assistance that most concern these are funeral expense assistance and early years assistance. These have fairly long application windows and it is entirely impossible that an individual may not be entitled when they first make an application, but their circumstances change and they become eligible within the application window. For example, a woman finds out that she is pregnant, applies for the best start grant, but has not yet had confirmation that she is eligible for low income benefits from DWP. She then receives confirmation of an award of universal credit later during the application window. The amendments will require the agency when making a determination that a person's claim is unsuccessful to assess whether the person's eligibility could change at a later date and include that in the decision letter so that the applicant is aware that they can reapply. The agency will then be under a duty to consider a further application from the same person at a later date. Thank you minister. Do any members wish to comment? Can I ask the minister to formally move 156? Move formally. Does the minister wish to wind up? Formally. Thank you. The question is that amendment 156 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is that section 20 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We now move to the next grouping of amendments, which is notification to applicant. I call amendment 167, in the name of Mark Griffin. Group with amendments 81, 168, 169, 170, 83 and 86, and I ask Mr Griffin to move amendment 167 and speak to all the amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I move amendment 167, in my name. The amendments in this group require ministers to provide a determination writing and have been lodged on the advice of the child poverty action group. Simply seek to ensure that, as standard, a notification is made to an applicant and writing. Nothing in any of those amendments would preclude the communication of the decision in other inclusive communication formats in accordance with the amendments that have been agreed in earlier sessions in my name and Ruth McGuire's name. It does not detract from the right to have that accessible information or prevent a decision maker notifying by phone of a decision. Amendment 167, 169, amendment 167, 89 and 70 give the applicant the right to have a clear and thorough notification of why a determination has been made and how the agency came to that decision. That has been a key call from Paul Gray in his second independent review into personal independence payments. In its response, the UK Government claims that it is not practical to automatically provide those reports to those who have been assessed, but disability charities have said that information in the reports would give those who have been knocked back for personal independence payments more of an understanding on how a decision was reached by the Department of Work and Pensions and would look to apply that system to the Scottish Social Security Agency. Specifically, the amendments require ministers to provide a copy of an assessment report as standard and list the rules that have not been satisfied in its determination. I think that that would aid transparency and subsequent read determination and appeals processes. Clearly, we accept that the Scottish system will get more things right first time, so I feel that this burden would be limited and that applicants are unlikely to agree with the original decision. I ask members to support the amendments in the group. I cannot support Mr Griffin's amendments in the group as they are currently drafted, although I understand the motivation behind his amendments 81, 83 and 86, and I am happy to work with him to look further at what they propose. Those three amendments would change the existing requirements for an individual to be informed of something to a requirement that the person be informed in writing. Although that seems likely to be what would happen anyway, the committee has already agreed to amendments about inclusive communication standards. A duty to inform, coupled with the duty to communicate inclusively, would require ministers to think carefully about how information can best be communicated to an individual. Those amendments could remove the onus on ministers to do that by saying that telling someone in writing is enough to meet the legal duty. I would be happy to work with Mr Griffin, as I have said, to see if an amendment can be brought forward at stage 3, which gives us the best of both of those requirements. I also have concerns about amendments 167, 168 and 170. Section 22 of the bill is already clear. When the agency tells someone of its determination, it has to give reasons. There is case law on what a statutory duty to give reasons requires, and any amendment here ought to take that into account. Those amendments require the agency to go beyond explaining the reasons for its decision in a particular case and provide a full assessment of the person's eligibility against every eligibility rule for the assistance type in question. For example, someone applies for early years assistance, and the first thing that the agency looks at is whether the residence condition is met. It finds that the condition is not met. That should be enough for the agency to decide that the individual does not qualify and send the person a determination explaining that. However, an unintended consequence of those amendments would be to require the agency to go on and assess the person against all the other eligibility criteria for early years assistance. If the person's original application does not provide enough information for that assessment to happen, the agency would have to seek that information either from the individual or other public sector bodies. That would undoubtedly slow down the process of issuing decisions, see resources used up assessing an individual against all eligibility criteria, even when it is obvious that the outcome of those assessments will not alter the final determination. Amendment 169 would also impose unnecessary requirements and, in some cases, might impose inappropriate requirements. It would compel ministers to provide every individual with a copy of an assessment report relating to a determination of their eligibility to assistance whether they wish that report or not. It is possible in some circumstances that the information that the agency ministers have used to reach a determination provides information that that individual is unaware of, particularly in respect of health conditions. It would be my view that the individual should be able to choose whether or not they receive that assessment report. In summary, I agree with Mr Griffin that there should be a duty on ministers to notify individuals of the outcome of their applications, the rationale for reaching the determination and any associated evidence that we relied upon to do so. However, there are a number of difficulties with the way in which Mr Griffin seeks to tie down that existing provision. I urge him not to press those amendments today and to work with us ahead of stage 3 to see how those concerns might be addressed. I welcome the minister's comments and the agreement that we have on the broad policy and tension of those amendments. I welcome working with the Government ahead of stage 3 to draft a set of amendments that we can all agree on that fulfil the aims, the policy aims that we share. I seek committee's permission to withdraw amendment 167. Committee content of that is withdrawn. Amendment 81, in the name of Mark Griffin, already debated in the Eaton level przekwhat amendment 167 dinosaur massive to move, or not move? Not move. In the Group statement, довodfaach Parliament cay in the tribe. Amendment 167, in the name of Mark Griffin, already debated in the Eaton level przekwhat amendment 167 dinosaur massником- tomaat vavodasio or not move? Amendment 169, in the name of Mark Griffin, already debated in the group statement The question is that section 22 be agreed or all agreed. I move to the next group of amendments that is redetermination and appeal. I call amendment 33 in the name of the minister grouped with amendments shown in the groupings. There is a large grouping in this, I am not going to read them all out. I ask the minister to move amendment 33 and speak to all the amendments in the group. I'm pleased to bring forward a number of amendments to address the issues raised during stage 1. Amendments 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 52 will allow a redetermination to be requested after the deadline if the person has a good reason for not meeting it. This will carry a right of appeal to the first-year tribunal if refused by the agency. Amendments 82 relate to the process for initiating an appeal to the first-year tribunal. I've listened to the concerns of stakeholder groups, including Inclusion Scotland and Citizens Advice Scotland, that if the process for requesting a redetermination and then an appeal is too laborious, people may, as a consequence, drop out of the system and not get what they are entitled to. That is not a result that this Government wants. The question is how to make the process for challenging a determination as simple as possible, whilst honouring our commitment to a rights-based system that requires individuals to retain control over the choices that they want to make. What my amendments would do is simplify the process by requiring the agency to provide to the individual an appeal form alongside the notice of redetermination. If the person wants to appeal to the first-year tribunal, they only send back the completed form saying that they wish to do so. The agency will then be required to hand over to the tribunal all the materials that it used to make its determination. That will mark the start of the appeal process, and from that point on, the appeal is in the hands of the tribunal and rightly no longer in the hands of the agency. I urge members to support those amendments. I do not support Ms McNeill's amendments in this group. The motivation behind her amendments is, I am sure, much the same as mine to simplify the process for appealing, but I believe that those amendments would complicate the process for asking for a redetermination. Rather than being able simply to ask the agency to look again at a determination, under those amendments, the individual would, at the same time, need to make a choice about whether, after the redetermination is made, the redetermination itself should be referred to the first-year tribunal on appeal. I find it difficult to understand how an individual can reasonably be expected to make an informed choice critical in a rights-based system before they know the outcome of the redetermination. My amendments provide that the individual can choose whether to appeal when they have the redetermination and know what it contains. It will not be obvious to many people whether it would be in their interests to preemptively ask for a tribunal appeal. Indeed, I do not believe that it would be obvious to me. I have another difficulty in principle with Ms McNeill's amendments and approach, which is that they take control away from the individual and give it to the agency. Under that approach, the agency would be required to submit an appeal on someone's behalf if the person has ticked a box when asking for a redetermination, and the redetermination is not more advantageous to the person. There are many difficulties in defining what would be more advantageous from an individual's perspective. For example, on the current PIP system, there are at least 12 possible outcomes for care and mobility components, with decisions on differing length of awards adding further complexity. If, for example, the original determination is based on a low-care component and middle mobility component and runs for two years, the redetermination is based on a low-care component and a low-mobility component but runs for five years, which is more advantageous. Under Ms McNeill's approach, it is for the agency but not the individual to make that call. There would also, I believe, be significant impacts on the tribunal service, which we should consider. The amendments would likely to result in more cases being sent to first-year tribunal. That is its intention, but if cases are sent to the tribunal with only limited involvement from the individual, it is reasonable to expect that a number of those appeals would not proceed. Having those cases set down in the tribunal's schedule, only for them to not call, is much more than an administrative inconvenience. We should not underestimate the impact that that sort of chun in a tribunal's caseload will have for the speed with which the tribunal can deal with appeals that people genuinely do want to proceed with. I urge members to support my amendments but not Ms McNeill's amendments in this group. I invite Pauline McNeill to move and speak to amendment 33A and the other amendments in the group. First of all, I welcome the progress that has been made in this area because the committee received significant evidence that the introduction of mandatory reconsideration had resulted in a dramatic drop in appeals and that people and applicants found the system onerous. I welcome the progress that has been made. However, I think that it is more than a question of simplifying the procedure, as the minister has said. For many people, for many claimants, they do not realise that it is a two-stage process. There is evidence that many applicants may give up and it is why we must consider very seriously at the stage of the bill what is the best way to ensure that applicants realise that it is in fact a two-stage process in which they have to make two decisions to appeal against the original decision and to appeal itself. My primary concern is that the dramatic reduction in appeals on the introduction of the mandatory, which I realised that under our bill will not be mandatory but there will be a reconsideration. The only statistics that we have show an 89 per cent drop-off from mandatory reconsideration to appeal. It is the most significant feature in the system since the introduction. It is one in which I think cannot simply be explained by adding in this additional part of the process. The purpose of mandatory consideration is to give the person an opportunity to present evidence against the decision for review without the need for a formal appeal process. I welcome the fact that under the current system, as we have previously discussed, the approach that the Scottish Government might take to this is that you would hope that there will be more successful decisions in the first instance and more successful decisions in the mandatory or the reconsideration process. George Robert Martin, who is president of the social entitlement chamber of the first year tribunal, said that mandatory reconsideration was based on a false premise as prior to the introduction, the DWP already considered every decision that went to appeal. It is significant that he has said that the introduction of mandatory reconsideration was of dubious advantage, whereas in the old system he only had to make one appeal. He also goes on to say that there is not really any real evidence at the moment as to what has discouraged people. Whatever the outcome of those amendments, I urge the Government to think at stage 3 whether or not there is some further powers required or some further research required to make sure that the reason that people do not drop off after the introduction of a reconsideration does not prevent them from going on to appeal. I want to deal with the amendments in my name, which are 33A, 193, 84, 1984, 87A and 195. My amendments are designed to ask the applicant of the claimant when they want to challenge the decision, given the option that they could opt for an automatic appeal should the reconsideration be unsuccessful, so that it is a one-stage process. I listened carefully to the minister during the passage of stage 1 and I agreed that it should be a rights-based system, but I would argue that you would be exercising your right at that stage to ensure that if you were unsuccessful at reconsideration you could offer an automatic right to take that to appeal. I think that we have to bear in mind that there are many vulnerable claimants here who are put off by the brown envelope arriving on the door. I do not know what to do, but I would note that one of the features of my amendments is that the person who would be notified as well had the option for an automatic appeal. That appeal is pending and they should go and seek representation to do so. I think that it is an important feature in the Government amendment that the paperwork for the appeal will go automatically to the tribunal system, so I think that that is quite significant progress. I think that it is a serious question whether this process will ensure that more people will exercise the right of appeal. I may seek not to move these amendments, convener, depending on the debate, but I certainly will be asking the minister to consider whether or not, just to be sure and to be in no doubt that the system that we are going to have as a support does not prevent people from seeking their right to have an appeal on their case. I am not satisfied at the moment that there is enough data at the moment to make that determination. Thank you. Do any other members wish to contribute with Mr Balfour? Thank you, convener. Can I first of all welcome the amendments in the minister's name? I do think that they are very helpful and I think that they also have listened to what we have heard at stage 1 and have had subsequent emails and letters from different groups. I got sympathy with Pauline McNeill's amendments. I think that it is a very tricky balance that we have to strike here between giving the individual control of his or her appeal and my slight concern at the moment as Pauline McNeill has drafted them is that we have to make that decision quite early on in the process. I do think that that does give me slight concern. We do want the individual to have that right to take the appeal if he wants to and if it is appropriate. Against, we do not want to clog up the system where you end up with the first tier tribunal having eight cases before them in a day and three or four people are simply not turning up because they do not want to pursue it. I think that that is quite a big concern because what we will end up with those who generally want to go through the whole process and have a right of appeal will be delayed because people may not know only just simply not turning up for their appeal. I think that the other issue around this and this is maybe something that could be addressed at regulation level later on is that we do now have helpfully within the bill the legal right to advice and assistance. I think that as this goes forward we have to make sure that the papers that the individual gets also goes to their representative and at the moment that is a wee bit not happening. I think that that will also give the individual greater protection because the person from the CEP or whoever is giving that advice will then be able to contact the claimant and say, do you want to go on to appeal and hear how you do it. That will give greater protection also to the individual that they have got a third party helping them with that process. I am happy to support the ministers. At the moment, I understand absolutely where Pauline McNeill is coming from and I think that we do want to make sure that there is not this large drop-off. I am not sure that the way that they are drafted at the moment does that. I think that this was an area of concern for many organisations. I note now that the Government amendment has the support of Citizens Advice Scotland which provides some comfort in this area. I have a lot of sympathy for Pauline McNeill's amendment because I think that we are all very concerned to see that huge percentage drop-off. I would just be interested in the minister's response if she could advise how the Government intends to keep an eye on that and to look at any consequences. What would be a satisfactory result in terms of appeal numbers in the future? I think that if we get advocacy and advice right here, too, that will have a big impact. That support may make a positive difference in this area as well. I think that the main problem that I have with the automatic going through is its twofold. The person having to make their decision at the beginning of a process, I understand the intention and I think that all of us would wish the whole system and people's experience through it to be as easy as possible. We do recognise the barriers that can be there with different stages. I think that mainly it is about clogging up the tribunal system. I think that that is a really important part of it. As Jeremy Balfour said, if there are eight cases sitting with them, but only four people are intending to come through, it will have knock-on effects on the people who are wishing to appeal as well. I sympathise with where Pauline McNeill is coming from. A question that I would have for her and for the minister would be to ask them what work they have done to understand what claimants would like to see in terms of appeals and what evidence there is. I know that a lot of the evidence that we have is from the previous system and yet that is what we have to look at, but what further things can we not do? Does anyone else want to contribute? Can I ask the minister to move amendment 33 and to wind up? Thank you, convener. Can I make a number of points in response to the debate? First of all, I believe that Ms McNeill and I are trying to resolve the same matter here and have much in common. I need to make a couple of points about the difference between the system that we are designing and, indeed, that legislation is underpinning and the current UK system. First of all, mandatory reconsideration will not be a feature in the Scottish system. Mandatory redetermination is a very different exercise. It is an exercise where the original decision is not re-looked at on the basis of whether the proper process was followed but is looked at by a new individual working in the agency looking at the case from scratch. It is a very different starting point. I welcome Ms McNeill's acknowledgement that our intention is to operate our system in such a way that many more decisions are got right first time because the right evidence is gathered to support those decisions in that first instance. However, redetermination is very different from mandatory reconsideration. In addition, an amendment that we have just agreed on short-term assistance is specifically there to ensure that individuals are not prevented from pursuing a challenge to the agency's decision making or to appeal on the basis of financial loss that they have to bear whilst they wait for that process to go through. That is a very important indication of our determination as a Government not to encourage people from challenging our decisions. For me, a rights-based system requires the individual to be informed in order to exercise their rights. My central difficulty with Ms McNeill's amendments is that the individual is being asked to make a decision about whether or not they will wish to appeal before they have information about the result of the first challenge that they have made, the redetermination. The decision about whether or not it is advantageous is out of the hands of the individual and in the hands of the agency. I think that in a rights-based system, if we mean to embed that through every aspect of what we do, that is the wrong approach. I would like to point out to the committee that, under my amendments, their rights would not be undermined by choosing to automatic appeal or not because they would still have the rights at the end of the process if they chose not to have an automatic appeal. It would not undermine their overall rights still to take an appeal. That is an important point to get across. I understand that, but what I believe to be the case is that the point where the person ticks the box to say, not only do I want to challenge the agency's decision, but I want to go to appeal, they do not have the information on the basis of the challenge. Then we have to go back to them to say, do you want to continue with the challenge to appeal stage? Unnecessarily complicated. Ms Maguire helpfully asked what evidence any of us might have for this, obviously we all have evidence from stage 1 discussion and debate and the evidence that was brought to individuals. We have some additional supplementary evidence from our experience panels, albeit that that is limited, but that does indicate that people wish to exercise their rights in a staged manner. In other words, making decisions about each step of the process as they proceed along that process. I think that the amendments proposed by Ms McNeill, whilst they are trying to achieve the same end as my amendments, unnecessarily complicate matters and ask individuals to make decisions in advance of having the information that they require to make those decisions. Two points about the tribunals. We shouldn't, and I think that Mr Balfour made this point clearly, we shouldn't see the additional burden that Ms McNeill's amendments potentially puts into the tribunals system simply as an administrative burden. It could have an effect on the speed of the tribunals decision making for those individuals who are genuinely choosing to pursue an appeal. That matters, because we know that in the current system one of the difficulties that individuals face is the length of time that they have to wait before tribunals can look at their case. My final point is with respect to the drop-off rate. Of course, the current drop-off rate comes in a system that is significantly different from the one that we are designing and, indeed, this committee is contributing to the legislation for. I would expect that it is reasonable to say that we will make more decisions correctly first-time round. The individuals will challenge those decisions and that the redetermination process is so different from mandatory reconsideration that we would expect to see changed decisions in the redetermination. The individuals may then still proceed to appeal. It is not simply ministers who will have oversight of this. This Parliament will have oversight of how that system is working, how well or otherwise it is working in a number of aspects, but including this, through the annual report that we have in the bill that ministers will bring to Parliament on the performance of the agency and the important indicators. Clearly, that is one of them. The Parliament itself will have oversight of how well the system that I am proposing is operating and will be able to require ministers to take steps should we discover that this system requires further improvement. Thank you, minister. Can you move amendment 33 for the record? My apologies, I move. Thank you. Can you get Pauline McNeill to wind up on amendment 33A and to press or withdraw the amendment? Thank you very much. I think the first thing to say, as I'm sure we all agree, that the right to appeal to have an independent panel decide whether or not your application should be upheld or not is an important principle. Of course, one way or the other, it would still be a requirement to go to reconsideration, albeit not mandatory. I think that it's an important principle. I take the minister's point that the only figures available that show a quite sharp drop-off are the figures that the DWP have for mandatory reconsideration. I accept that point. However, we don't really have any information. We can only really guess, as to whether my system or the Scottish Government's position are likely to prevent a sharper drop-off. I think that the point that Jerry Mee Balfour makes about the papers is quite an important one. I acknowledge in the Government's amendments that it's a very significant development that, in those amendments, the paperwork would go direct. I think that's very helpful. I have a knowledge that I do agree with the minister that it's a right-based approach, but, as I've said, I just want to emphasise that my amendments would not preclude the rights of the individual to take an appeal should they not opt for an automatic appeal. Could it have a delay in clogging up the tribunal system? What we don't know... I was just going to address your point. It's actually on what you just said. Sorry to interrupt you. I think that the point about the rights by exercising rights is that, for somebody to do that, they need to have all the information so that they can make a decision based on all the information. I think that that's the point about it maybe not being compatible with the rights-based approach. They can take the automatic appeal, they can not take the automatic appeal, then they can change, but if they take it at the beginning before having all the information, then that's the bit that's at odds with it being rights-based. I accept it, but all you're asking the applicant at that stage is you're saying that should your challenge be unsuccessful, would you want to go forward automatically to appeal that decision? At the end of the day, it's a balance that you want to strike. What I'm trying to get at here, which I agree with the minister, what we're both trying to get at here is to address what's been a very significant problem under the old system. That is balancing all of that with the concern that there will be people who will drop off because they will not realise it's a two-stage process. Could it have an impact of clogging up the tribunal system? We don't know the answer to that. However, the system that the Scottish Government has already outlined where their approach to reconsideration should ensure that there will be less appeals, you would think, because that would be a fresh look at the original decision. I'm not going to press and I'm going to seek to withdraw, but I just wanted to get on the record that that was my overall purpose, and I would want to return to stage 3. The only thing that I would ask the Scottish Government to consider on all of this is whether or not there should be a commitment to review and to get some research if we find that the early stages of the new system in operation result in a concerning drop in the number of people who choose to take up their right to appeal. Thank you. Can I ask the committee content that 33A be withdrawn? Can I ask the minister to press or withdraw amendment 33? Press. The question is that amendment 33 be agreed, are we all agreed? I call amendment 34 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 33 and asked the minister to move formally. Formally. The question is that amendment 34 be agreed, are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is that section 23 be agreed, are we all agreed? Yes. I call amendment 35 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 33 and asked the minister to move formally. Moved formally. Thank you. The question is that amendment 35 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. I call amendment 36 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 33 and asked the minister to move formally. Moved formally. The question is that amendment 36 be agreed, are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is that section 24 be agreed, are we all agreed? I call amendment 82 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 33 and asked the minister to move formally. Moved formally. The question is that amendment 82 be agreed to, are we all agreed? I call amendment 83 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 867 and asked Mr Griffin to move or not move. Thank you. I call amendment 193 in the name of Pauline McNeill already debated with amendment 33 and asked Mr McNeill to move or not move. 193, you're excellent. I'm not moved. Thank you. I call amendment 84 in the name of the minister already debated Rwyf doedd y gweld y registerfyniad A84A yn ymweld Polly Meet Neil yn ymgyrch fwy ffordd yw ymgyrch ganddofyniad 33 a i'w ffwy fwy fwy fwy fyrdd o'r newydd? Rwyf doedd ganddofyniad 84 yn ymgyrch fwy fwy fwy, gof 점wng, yn oedd bydd yn ymgyrch. Y cwestiwn i'r Cadw fwy fwy ymgyrch ymgyrch ymgyrch arwyddoiciatraeth, am hyn yn gallu bydd agriadol. Y cwestiwn i'r cwestiwn i'n disgwdd ffwy fwy fwy fwy fwy fwy fwy fyddoiciatraeth mewn mewn datblyg? Mae y peth yn dweud nawr ar gyfer y maes nhw, ac mae'n dwi'n ddych i ffrwng. Mae'n fryfrig mae mynd i ddag, ac rydw i'n ddych i gael eu ddweud pasteurau. Mae leoedd yn y ddych i gyda mailingen. Mae gweld y maes nhw, Mark Griffin, yn rwyf am ddydd ar gyfer y maes nhw, a'n rwyf am ddydd ar gyfer m Penguin, a'n ddydd ar gyfer mailingen. Mae gael yn ddyddo i ddweud pasteurau yn yr unrhyw y mae Polly McNeill at ddydd allan naddwch meetwm wenthylion meddwl hyn o θαrfaethwn i Squ fadedd y byd. For produces consideration, efo thym ni dysw ran o hynny leddgledeig sydd efallai oho ar I ask the minister to press or withdraw amendment 87. Press. The question is that amendment 87 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. The question is that section 26 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. The question is that section 27 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. I call amendment 88, in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 33, and I ask the minister to move formally. Move formally. I call amendment 88A, in the name of Pauline McNeill, already debated. Thank you. I ask the minister to press or withdraw amendment 88. Press. The question is that section 88 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Thank you. Before we move to the next group, I am going to call a comfort break for 10 minutes maximum. Please be back here at 10.35 at the very latest. Thank you. Welcome back. My apologies. I did not stop just before a new grouping. We have some other amendments to consider. I would like to call amendment 89, 90, 91, 92, 93 and 37, all in the name of the minister and all previously debated. I invite the minister to move amendments 89 to 93 and 37 on block. Moved on block. Thank you. I ask whether any member objects to a single question being put on amendments 89 to 93 and 37. Thank you. If the question is that amendments 89 to 93 and 37 are agreed, are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. The question is that section 28 be agreed, are we all agreed? Yes. Amendment 99 to 95 in the name of Pauline McNeill, all already debated with amendment 33, Ms McNeill to move or not moved. Thank you. I now move to the new group, which is first-year tribunal power to determine entitlement. I call amendment 206 in the name of Pauline McNeill, under group in its own and I invite Ms McNeill to speak and move amendment 206. I think that the amendment is designed to ensure that a tribunal need not consider any part of the claim of which the claimant is satisfied with. The intention was to ensure that a tribunal could, due to having the power, to only visit the aspect of the claimant that the claimant was unsatisfied with and probably going to be satisfied that the tribunal already has the power to do that, in which case I would seek withdrawal, but it would just be helpful to get that on the record. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to speak to Mr Beatt? I can ask the minister to contribute to the debate. Thank you, convener. Tribunal procedural rules provide that first-year tribunal may look at any issue in considering an appeal and not just the points of dispute raised by the upland, that is for the tribunal to decide. It can look broadly or it can look narrowly. Tribunals can make significantly different findings of fact from the original decision-maker. Ministers cannot restrict a tribunal's authority or direct it in its deliberations as tribunals are independent and judicially led. It would seem to me that the amendment could appear to tie the tribunal's hands in calculating what an individual is entitled to. The appellant, in particular one without the support of a welfare rights officer, may not have specified all of the potential grounds of appeal. The tribunal might identify things that the individual has missed. Conversely, the tribunal may consider that part of a determination is plainly wrong, even though the appellant is not disputing it. Clearly, the tribunal would want to make what it considers to be the right decision. These are matters for the tribunals to decide, not for the bill. I urge members and I urge Mr McNeill, indeed, not to press this amendment. Minister, can I ask Pauline McNeill to wind up and press or withdraw her amendment? I'm satisfied with her response and I would seek to withdraw that amendment. Thank you. Are the committee content that that be withdrawn? Thank you. The question is that section 29 be agreed, are we all agreed? I now call amendment 38, in the name of the minister, who is already debated with amendment 33. I ask the minister to move formally. I move formally. The question is that amendment 38 be agreed, are we all agreed? Thank you. We now move to new grouping on first-tier tribunal ordinary members. I call amendment 127, in the name of Pauline McNeill, in a group on its own. I ask Mr McNeill to move and speak to amendment 127. Thank you very much. This was an amendment that I submitted after discussion with Sam H, who has some experience of the tribunal system, the primary role of the tribunals to consider and determine applications in the case of compulsory treatment orders under the Mental Health Act to consider appeals against compulsory measures. A key feature of the mental health tribunal is that every sitting member is presided over by three members, a legal member who acts as convener and a medical member and a general member. The general member is someone who has lived experience of a mental health disorder. This amendment would seek to ensure that one of the members of the tribunal would have lived experience. I think that it is good practice. I am presuming that, of course, the intention would be—although I am not clear about whether or not there will be a three-panel tribunal in every case, however it seems to me to be a good balance to strike in the system, which is the bold. Thank you. Do you have any other questions? I think that, first of all, I am not sure that this is in the right bill and in the right place. Obviously, we have seen in regard to papers, the draft regulations in regard to how tribunals will be run, which is going to be just as committee, but may well be leaked to us at a later stage. I think that if this was going to happen, it should appear there, not within this particular bill. I also have to say, and I promised again just from my own committee that I was an ordinary member of the tribunal, that I think that this would exclude a number of people from sitting on the tribunal who would come with a lot of experience, just in regard to the way that it is worded at the moment. I think that there is a danger that we could lose experience of people who have physical or mental illness, as an ordinary member, as it is worded. I am sure that that is just unfortunate drafting, and it could probably tied up at stage 3 if it was to be moved. However, my own view is that this is not particularly helpful in this bill, and we should look at it when the Justice Committee looks at the average tribunal's work and that would seem to me in a more appropriate place to have that debate. Mfynna, I have no difficulty with the principle that Ms McNeill's amendment aims to achieve. The ordinary members of the tribunal should come from a range of experiences. However, Mr Balfour is correct that the bill is not the mechanism for achieving this. The mechanism is the tribunal regulations under the Tribunals Scotland Act 2014. As the committee has been reminded by Mr Balfour, on 22 January we launched a public consultation on the full suite of regulations needed for creating a new chamber in Scottish tribunals to hear social security appeals. The draft eligibility for appointment regulations provide for the appointment of ordinary members with two types of specialism, medical and disability. The disability criteria have been expanded to align with the definition of disability in section 6 of the Equality Act 2010. That ensures that the meaning of disability covers not just physical disability but also mental impairment. Those members would be involved in situations where medical issues fall to be determined in connection with entitlement to disability assistance or employment injury assistance. The consultation proposes that, in all other cases, it would be dealt with by the legal member sitting alone, but the point of the consultation on the draft regulations is, of course, to hear views. The consultation on the draft closes on 16 April, and I can assure both Ms McNeill and this committee that care will be taken in considering and balancing any views expressed on eligibility for appointment and as to which members should sit on different tribunals. I would ask Ms McNeill not to press this amendment but would urge her and indeed other members of the committee to respond to the current consultation and we would then take matters forward in the appropriate manner. Thank you, minister. Can I invite Pauline McNeill to first move the amendment out just for the record, Ms McNeill, and then to wind up and press it withdraw? I should have moved it in the first instance. In winding up, convener, I will seek not to withdraw. I am persuaded by Jeremy Balfour and the minister that perhaps this is not the place, although I still stand by the substantial point in the amendment. The discussion that I would like to have with the committee at a later stage, because I think that there is a close interest that the committee should have on the operation of the tribunal system and the consultation on going, because there is a very, very close relationship between the work that we are doing and the tribunal system. Perhaps we should be a secondary committee. I do not know what is the discussion that I would like to have. On that basis, I would agree that it is not the appropriate place to have this discussion and I would seek to withdraw, convener. Thank you. Can I have approval that that will be withdrawn from the committee? We now move to the next group, which is obligation to provide information. I call amendment 196 in the name of Mark Griffin and a group on its own, and I ask Mr Griffin to move the amendment and to speak to the amendment. Thank you, convener. I move amendment 196 in my name. Briefly, this amendment has been lodged with the support for child poverty action group and removes the possibility that, if someone is asked to provide information, for example, a pay slip or a medical test and they simply can't, they then could automatically be refused their entitlement. While I recognise that this is not the policy intention that is intending not to be negative, the legislation should not enable the possibility of this practice. The fuel-as-drafted provision goes beyond the general practice under the current UK benefits system. A fair provision could be that the agency may go ahead and decide the award based on the evidence that is available, but I'm interested to hear the comments of the Government on this particular amendment. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to contribute to the debate? Thank you, convener, just very quickly. To me, this section provides something that's useful and important and that will make sure that decisions are made and that there aren't outstanding collections of data lying with the agency. I just wonder if data protection is an issue that we need to think of and be mindful of, and I would put that question to Mr Griffin and to the minister. Do any other members wish to come in? Thank you. I can't support Mr Griffin's amendment 196. Section 32, 30 brackets 2 of the bill, is a technically important provision that cannot be left out. Section 30 deals with the situation where the agency does not have the information it needs to make a determination about someone's eligibility. Subsection 1 lets the agency request that information from the individual. I want to emphasise here that it only allows information to be requested if the information is necessary for a determination to be fully made. If the agency has asked someone for information, allowed a reasonable period for a reply and has not received it, then the agency needs to be able to determine the application at some point. That is what subsection 2 of section 30 is for, to allow ministers to fulfil the duty that section 19 of the bill places on ministers to make a determination of a person's entitlement. Because we are talking about a situation in which the agency lacks some information that it needs to decide what the individual is entitled to, therefore there has to be some legal basis for the agency to make a determination in the absence of that information. Otherwise, as Mr McPherson hinted at, the agency would have to keep the application open and would have to hold the personal information of the individual in question in perpetuity. That is at odds with data protection principles only to hold information for the purposes for which it is needed. I should stress that section 30, subsection 2, is not saying that without the information an application will inevitably fail. There may be cases where information is sought to decide whether a person qualifies for a higher rate of award and information already held justifies an award at a lesser rate. My issue with this amendment is that it leaves applications hanging where an individual has applied but failed to provide what has been sought from them. I do not believe that that is either appropriate or helpful. For those reasons, I would invite Mr Griffin not to press amendment 196. Can I invite Mr Griffin to wind up and press or withdraw his amendment? Thank you. On the basis of the information from the Government, I would seek the committee's permission not to withdraw this amendment. Thank you. Is the committee content to have that withdrawn? Thank you. The question is that section 30 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. The next group is medical assessments. Amendment 207, in the name of Alison Johnson, group with amendments 208, 171 and 172. I ask Ms Johnson to move amendment 207 and speak to all the amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I stood for election on a manifesto commitment to reduce the number of assessments used to assess eligibility for devolved benefits. I believe that SNP members of the committee campaigned on a similar commitment, the 2016 manifesto stated, to stop the revolving door of assessments and related stress and anxiety for those with long-term illnesses, disabilities or conditions, while amendments 207 and 208 aim to do just that. The principle established in amendment 207 is that pre-existing evidence should be fully considered before insisting on an assessment, where already existing evidence is sufficient to corroborate what the applicant has claimed on their application. We really shouldn't be asking them to undergo unnecessary assessments, which can, for some people, be highly stressful experiences that exacerbate conditions and illness. I haven't been prescriptive in how this should be done. What the standard should be for deciding what pre-existing evidence is sufficient is a matter for Scottish ministers. But not putting people through unnecessary assessments is an important principle that we should establish in law. It's also a matter of practicality and efficiency because current PIP assessments can cost up to £200. If an assessment is required, however, amendment 208 asks Scottish ministers to consider a range of different options with a view to consider ministers to look at forms of assessment that may be less taxing and stressful than face-to-face. Where face-to-face is absolutely essential, the amendment asks ministers to look at the distance from home that the person will have to travel to the centre and any adverse effects that travel might have. It also specifically highlights the possibility of assessing applicants in their own homes. To be absolutely clear here, the intention is not to stop assessments from being done when they are necessary to determine entitlement. I know that the minister shares those aims. In January, the minister outlined a very similar process to the Commons DWP select committee and has made comments to that effect in this chamber. I'm pleased to note the support that I have for this amendment from Inclusion Scotland, Citizens Advice Scotland and the Child Poverty Action Group. If we are to find this new system, as the Scottish Government intends to rightly on the principles of dignity and respect, we need to find applicants from unnecessary assessments that can, however unintentionally, cause distress. It is one way to create such a system and I move the amendment in my name. Thank you, Mr Watson. Can I invite Mark Griffin to speak to amendment 171 and the other amendments in the group? Thank you, convener. Amendments 171 and 172 are sponsored by SAMH. The intention behind those amendments is that any face-to-face assessment for disability assessment is requested. The person conducting the assessment should have professional experience of mental health if the person being assessed has a mental health condition. Research from SAMH has highlighted significant problems with the manner in which face-to-face assessments work for people with mental health conditions. Those include a lack of understanding of the impact of mental health by assessors, face-to-face assessments and ability to accurately assess the impact of fluctuating conditions and stigmatising attitudes and behaviours by some assessors. The cumulative impact of those failings has been a loss of trust in the PIP assessment process and in some cases a deterioration of applicants' mental health. My mind, which is SAMH's sister Charity in England, surveyed 800 people with mental health problems on their experience of PIP and only 8 per cent felt that their assessor understood the impact of their mental health problem had on them as an individual. We welcome the Government's intention to reduce face-to-face assessments for disability benefits, but still feel this amendment provides a safeguard for those applicants who would still require such an assessment. On top of that, a reduction in assessments should make it easier to provide conditions-specific assessors since demand for assessments should be lower. It will also contribute to building trust between the new Scottish social security system and applicants. It is essential for its long-term effectiveness to ask members to support the amendments in that group in my name. Does anyone else wish to contribute, Mr Balfour? First of all, in my regard to Mark Griffin's amendment, I absolutely support the way that he has gone about it and I think that it is the right way forward. My slight concern is in my regard to the actual wording of the amendment where he says that it is an assessment of the individual's mental health. My understanding of that is not what the assessment is about. It is about how the mental health impacts the individual's needs to live her day-to-day life. I am not sure that the wording is absolutely right in regard to that. I wonder whether, in his summing up, he would either withdraw the amendment and go back a fresh one at stage 3 or maybe give some kind of a minister a comment on it in regard to whether the wording is actually intended, what is intended to happen. I think that the other issue that we just have to be wary of and this will be an issue for the Government going forward is are there enough people out there that have that experience that can do the assessments? That does not make it wrong. We just need to make sure that there are right people. I am very sympathetic to what the amendment is trying to do. I am just not absolutely sure that the wording is absolutely right. I do not support Alison Johnstone's two amendments in regard to this. I suppose that I am one of a few people and I do not want to provoke my colleagues across the table from having another go at assessments, but I was somebody who went through an assessment and it was very positive. I appreciate that a lot of people have not had that and I have been working with at least a couple of members. I have not had that, but if you go back even to the 1980s, 1980s we had assessments done. My first time I went for DLA I was assessed. I think that what we have got to be careful here is that for some people assessments will actually help them to get the benefit that they require because of that face-to-face integration that you can never get from reading a bit of paper about a person. The other danger that we have is that, yes, the agency has to collect as much information if it can get about that person, but sometimes that information is just not available or it is actually very hard to get. The quickest way for an individual is with the right form of assessment, with the right support, is to go through that assessment and have that. I am slightly concerned that we end up actually making claimants' lives harder because they are not getting that assessment at the appropriate time and done in the appropriate way. I think that there is an argument for some assessments to be done at home again that is what happened on quite a number of occasions. It used to be that the first-year tribunal would hear a case first and then assess if that assessment was done face-to-face and they would arrange that. That may be something that we want to look at regulations later on. I am just concerned that, as the amendment was written by Alison Johnstone at the moment, we could be making life more difficult for people to be able to get it. The assessments may not have done that well at the moment on some situations, but that does not mean that assessments are not actually a good way because you can quite quickly assess someone. That is why often tribunals make very different decisions because they see a person and it is not just a paper exercise. I cannot support the amendments in this group because they fail to understand what is being assessed. We are not talking about medical assessments. We are not talking about assessments of people's medical condition or treatment or anything else. We are talking about assessments of the needs that people have arising out of their disability or health condition. Alison Johnstone's amendments fail to recognise that as does the wording of Mark Griffin's amendment, which I would otherwise welcome on mental health. We will not be supporting any of the amendments in this group. We will not be supporting Mark Griffin's amendments because the principle is the right one. His amendment would need to be amended before we could support it because it uses the phrase, an assessment of the individual's mental health. That is not what is happening in his assessment. It is an assessment of the needs that the individual has arising out of their mental health and that is a very different thing. Minister, would you like to contribute? Thank you, convener. Can I start with Mr Griffin's amendments? I agree with the principle behind those, that individuals should be assessed by professionals who understand the specific conditions and the impact of those conditions on the individual, and our arrangements should provide for the needs of those with mental health conditions. The Scottish Government has placed a clear emphasis on getting assessment decisions right first time, every time, and the use of appropriately trained, or as I have referred to them before, conditions-specific assessors would help us to achieve that. I agree with Mr Griffin that, in many cases, mental health assessments would be best dealt with by people with professional experience of mental health. Unfortunately, to commit to implementing those amendments as drafted would inadvertently mean increasing the risk that individuals with mental ill health may not be effectively assessed for other conditions or disabilities, which they may have, particularly when the mental health condition is not the primary condition. People frequently present with multiple conditions, insisting that everyone who has any kind of mental health condition to any degree is assessed only by a mental health professional may result in some people not getting the right assessor or assessment for them, particularly if their primary condition is physical. The Scottish Government has consistently argued and I am on record has been noted for condition-specific assessors, and we are working with our stakeholders and experienced panels to see how we can best implement that moving forward. I know that, like myself, Mr Griffin wants to see the best possible assessment outcomes for individuals with mental health conditions. I would urge Mr Griffin to consider not pressing the amendment so that we may work together for stage 3 to improve on its current wording, but if he wishes to press, we will support the amendments but will wish to come back at stage 3 in order to make what I consider to be some improvements to them. Moving to the amendments from Ms Johnson, again I wholeheartedly agree with the principle behind them that face-to-face assessment should be conducted only when completely necessary and that when assessments are required they meet the needs of the individual. We remain committed to reducing the number of face-to-face assessments that are required. To do that, we focus on the initial stage of the process, as others have commented. However, assessments are undertaken in order to determine the impact of the individual's disability or ill health condition as Mr Tomkins has outlined. Therefore, the assessments are not medical assessments. They are assessments, if you like, of impact, because that is the purpose of the benefit. I know that Ms Johnson and I share the same intent in terms of assessments, the same intent in terms of determining when assessments are required and when they are unnecessary. Indeed, many of the same intent in terms of process should be gone through by the agency in reaching that view, including ensuring that assessments are made as close to the individual as possible and at home where that is desirable. However, I would urge Ms Johnson to withdraw those amendments on the basis that I am open to continuing to work together to ensure that assessments are only undertaken when necessary and if required, we can come back at stage 3. Thank you. Minister, can I invite Ms Johnson to wind up and to press or withdraw her amendment? Thank you, convener. I think I'll begin with addressing Mr Balfour's comments, if I may. I think that Mr Balfour frequently shares his own experience with members. Personally, I think that it's really important that we don't ever assume our own experience as one that is universally shared. Citizens Advice Scotland in their briefing for today, say, from consultation with several hundred CAB clients and advisers, that the highest priority for the Scottish Social Security System was that the number of unnecessary medical assessments for disability benefits is substantially reduced by making the best use of existing evidence. Their submission really does support the fact that, for a lot of people, this is a stressful, unnecessary process, that people are not being treated with dignity and respect on every occasion, that it speaks to poor quality of decision making, charges for medical evidence and people on DLE losing their award on reassessment. It's clear that a lot of improvement can be done in this area. I'm aware that Mr Tomkins and the minister have concerns around the word medical. I warmly welcome the minister's support for the principle of my amendments and I certainly wouldn't want any evidence left out of the process that might help an individual access entitlement. If a rewording of the amendment means that fewer people have to be assessed unnecessarily, then I'm very prepared to work on the wording of my amendment with the Government to bring them back at stage 3. Clearly, we share the same intent and I think that this is a really important issue and one that we should all seek to get right. With the approval of the committee, I will withdraw my amendment at this stage. Does the committee approve that withdrawal? Thank you. I call amendment 208, in the name of Alison Judson, already debated with amendment 207 and asked Alison Judson to move or not move. Not move. We move to the next grouping, which is appointees, and I call amendment 157, in the name of the minister. Group with amendments 158 and 159 and asked the minister to move amendment 157 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. Those amendments are technical adjustments. They provide the new agency with the power to appoint individuals or organisations to act on behalf of a person who appears to be eligible for assistance, but who is unable to act for themselves and has nobody authorised to act on their behalf. The effect of those amendments will be to ensure that individuals who do not have the mental or physical capacity to act themselves are able to access and receive all of the assistance that they are entitled to under the new Scottish system. They also allow an appointee to be made when someone has died and there is no executor of their estate. Where an appointee is made, they will take on the rights and responsibilities for the person eligible for Scottish social security. I move amendment 157. Thank you, minister. Do any other members wish to contribute? No. Minister, do you wish to wind up? Formally, thank you. The question is that amendment 157 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 158 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 157 and asked the minister to move formally. Formally. The question is that amendment 158 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is that section 31 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is that section 32 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. I call amendment 159 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 157 and asked the minister to move formally. Move formally. So the question is that 159 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. I call amendment 39 in the name of the ministeredd i ddim yn dd調enniol mewn effektuêr yn gweithio'r ddoeithachol? A fyddwn gwneud ei ddweithio'r ddweithio yn gweithio effektu oedd iddynt hefyd. Felly, yn ei ddweithio'r ddweithio'r ddweithio'r ddweithio'r ddweithio, yn ddweithio'r ddweithio ar y gyfer Lord of Wath amendment yn welcom that and would look to work with government and members of the committee towards agreeable wording that fulfills the policy aim that I think we are all sure and on that basis seek not to lodge 171. Okay, thank you. I call amendment 116. In the name of the minister already debated with amendment 156. I ask the minister to move formally. Move formally. The question is that amendment 160 be agreed to, are we all agreed? The question is that section 33 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. The question is that section 34 be agreed, are we all agreed? Thank you. I call amendment 128 in the name of Pauline McNeill already debated with amendment 4 and asked Pauline McNeill to move or not move. Not moved. Thank you. I call amendment 129 in the name of Pauline McNeill already debated with amendment 4 and asked us to be able to move or not move. Not moved. Okay, the question is that section 35 be agreed, are we all agreed? Amendment 191, in the name of Mark Griffin, is already debated with amendment 182. Has Mr Griffin to move or not move? Not move. We move to the next grouping, which is assistance, no longer required. I call amendment 197, in the name of Mark Griffin, in a group on its own, and I ask Mr Griffin to move and speak to amendment 197. Thank you, convener. I move amendment 197 in my name. I appreciate that the motives behind the amendment are not immediately obvious, and I hope that I will be able to explain that. The amendment seeks to give people a right to cease receipt of assistance at any point and to effectively say that they no longer wish to receive a particular form of assistance. The chair of the reaction group highlights that, as is allowed under UK law, it is important that people are able to withdraw their application once they have an award and that there are circumstances when a person might want to stop getting a particular benefit, even though they are still entitled to it. The example that I would give is that this might happen when a couple has a choice between the two and the relationship as to who receives that particular benefit. The couple has a choice about what makes the application and receives that assistance. A child poverty action group highlights the example of a couple who care for their disabled child. One gets carers assistance for their child but has their own health condition. They get universal credit, and in universal credit there are extra amounts for someone who gets a carers benefit and for someone who has a health condition, but not both unless they are different people. If they could not withdraw their claim to then allow their other partner to claim and receive it, they could be in a situation where they could be over £150 a month worse off, because their universal credit was not able to include the carers element. However, I am happy to listen to the debate around this particular amendment and how it is worded from other members of the committee and the Government. Mr Griffin, does any other member wish to make a contribution? I will invite the minister to comment. I am happy to support the principle behind Mr Griffin's amendment 197, but I would ask him not to press it today for technical reasons. There can indeed be situations in the benefit system where it would be sensible for people to choose to stop receiving assistance, as that may allow them or related persons to claim other assistance instead. The committee has agreed amendments around ministers' duty to promote take-up and income maximisation, so it may be beneficial to have an express statement that a person can decline assistance despite those duties, since there is an apparent contradiction between them. It may be clearer to make the statement earlier in the bill, and it seems to me unnecessary to require that a person has to state their choice in a particular way or ways and to have to publicise what those ways are. Ministers would no doubt try to ensure that a person was making an informed choice, but that seems to me to be something that is best left to good practice in the usual situations where it arises. Concerns about the wording and the location of the amendment suggest to me that it would be better to look at this in the light of other amendments and bring something forward at stage 3, so I am happy to work with Mr Griffin on that, and on that basis I would ask him not to press the amendment today. I welcome the Government's comments. Aside from the duty to maximise incomes of an individual, we should also look at that wider, holistic picture and be looking to maximise the incomes of a household as well as an individual, which might, in those two things, well be in conflict, which is something that I think we can consider in advance of stage 3 and look forward to working with the Government on that basis, withdraw amendment 197. The committee content for that to both, Tron. Thank you. We now move to the group recovery of assistance. I call amendment 40 in the name of the minister, to the amendments 41, 42, 43, 44 and 45, and I invite the minister to move amendment 40 and to speak to all the amendments in the group. The Scottish Government has always been clear that overpayments made as a result of official error will not normally be recovered unless there are exceptional circumstances. The committee acknowledged that in its stage 1 report and reflecting the concerns of stakeholders such as Inclusion Scotland and Citizens Advice Scotland, it has asked the Government to make the position clear on the face of the bill. I am happy to bring forward amendments to do that. That has required us to widen the scope of overpayment liability to encompass all types of error through amendment 40, then set out a qualification for when that liability exists under amendment 43. Those amendments mean that an individual will only be liable for an overpayment when the mistake was their fault or that it was reasonable for them to notice that an overpayment had occurred. The amendments will also bring all types of error resulting in an overpayment under the statutory framework, meaning that the Government cannot rely on the common law rules of unjustified enrichment to recover overpayments. That further increases transparency around an important issue, and I hope that members will be able to welcome the amendments in my name. Amendment 45 is a technical amendment. When a person dies, the cost of their funeral is a priority debt that takes precedence over most other debts where there is money in the deceased person's estate. The amendment confirms that this normal legal rule applies where funeral expense assistance has been given to someone. For example, that means that if a person leaves assets that can be used to meet the cost of their funeral, but a person needs assistance to meet those costs up front, then assistance can be given and its costs are then recovered from the estate in the usual way. The committee will note that amendment 45 enables recovery from the deceased person's estate but does not enable recovery from the person who is assisted. That is in line with the usual approach to those matters, and I move amendment 40. Thank you minister. Does anyone else wish to contribute, Mr Griffin? Thank you, convener. With support of those amendments today, I think that we would seek to work with the Government and the Minister ahead of stage 3 and look for co-operation to improve on particular areas that we feel can be improved. Without the Government amendments, people are liable to repay an overpayment caused by official error, and there is no right of appeal against recovery of an overpayment. With the Scottish Government amendments, people are liable to repay an overpayment caused by official error if a reasonable person should have noticed the error. People are not liable to repay an overpayment if it was not their fault nor could they have been expected to notice the error, but there is still no right of appeal against recovery of an overpayment. I think that the Minister's amendments are considerable improvement. Can I take an intervention? Yes, certainly. I'm obliged. Do you agree that, at the moment, under the present system, the individual does have a right of appeal to a first tier tribunal and that would be a safeguard that could be looked at at stage 3? I was just coming on to that point, Mr Balfour. As it currently stands, people would have to go to court for an appeal, meaning that an unnecessary call on legal aid budgets on court time presents a fairly substantial barrier to justice. As Mr Balfour pointed out, the current UK system has a right of appeal to the first tier tribunal. I feel that the test of liability to repay is too strict and stricter than it is currently for virtually all DWP benefits. I think that the bill should provide for regulations setting out the methods of recovery. Evidence has shown that deductions from benefits causes hardship and having a limit on the level of deduction from benefit and law would give protection to vulnerable people, many of whom would struggle if there was no protection on the amount of deductions that were taken on a weekly or monthly basis. However, as I do support the considerable improvement that those amendments present, it would look to work with the Government ahead of stage 3 on some of the issues that I have flagged. I am very happy to continue discussions in advance of stage 3 on whether improvements can be made. I should make it clear that it is possible to appeal recovery if the deductions are made through the first tier tribunal. The DWP makes freestanding recovery deductions, which is not something that we propose. Nonetheless, I am grateful for the support. I am happy to continue the discussion with Mr Griffin and other committee members if they wish in advance of stage 3 to see whether further improvements can be brought forward to which the Government would agree to. The question is that amendment 40 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Call amendment 41, in the name of the minister, is already debated with amendment 14. I ask the minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 41 be agreed. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 42, in the name of the minister, is already debated with amendment 40. I ask the minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 42 be agreed. Are we all agreed? The question is that section 36 be agreed. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 43, in the name of the minister, is already debated with amendment 40. I ask the minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 43 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that section 37 be agreed. Are we all agreed? And the question is that section 38 be agreed. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 44, in the name of the minister, is already debated with amendment 40. I ask the minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 44 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. I call amendment 45, in the name of the minister, is already debated with amendment 40. I ask the minister to move formally. Thank you. The question is that amendment 45 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. I'm very conscious of time, but I'm not sure that we should. I'm reminded of time. We're now at 20 past 11 with a stop time of approaching half past. Given that the next grouping is a significant grouping, I'm going to suspend for today and return to stage two proceedings next week. A new marshaled list and groupings will be issued to the committee. I thank everyone for their attendance this morning. Thank you.