 Ffair reform committee for 2016. Can ask everyone to make sure that mobile phones and other electronic devices are either switched off or turned to aeroplane mode. Today, Alec Johnson is substituting for John Lamont, and I've got apologies from Neil Findlay. First item on the agenda, can we agree to take items 4 and 5 in private? Thank you. Second item on the agenda is a consideration of the subordinate legislation welfare fund Scotland regulations 2016 draft, and we're taking evidence. The first session, we have Nicky McLean, who's the director and Paul McFadden, who's the head of complaints standards at the Scottish Public Service ombudsman. Welcome. Either of you have an opening comment to make before we start? Just to say thank you to the committee for the invitation today. We're obviously taking on this new function from the 1st of April 2016 of secondary reviews, and happy to discuss the work that we've done in preparation for that. Do you think that these new powers and this new function could change the role that the ombudsman has at the moment? I think that Scotland, in comparison to other ombudsman schemes across the UK, is quite unusual now in that the majority of other public service ombudsman across the UK do also have other functions, and it doesn't appear to impact significantly on their ability to carry out that classic ombudsman complaint handling function. I think that we're fairly confident that it won't influence the nature and the makeup of the work that we do around complaints. Because you're an ungovernmental body and you're responsible to Parliament, you've drafted and designed your own appeals procedure. Will those who have been refused by local authorities and who have appealed to you have the right of representation? The vast majority of occasions we expect that the reviews that we'll be making decisions on will be able to be concluded on the basis of the information that has already been collected and the information that is already presented. That's the experience of the current review stage. When the scheme was being designed, we specifically asked for the ability to take oral hearings or conduct oral hearings where we thought that fairness may dictate that was required now. That wasn't felt to be necessary by the Government at that stage, but we felt that we wanted to future proof our system to make sure that we had all available tools to do that. A future proof against emerging human rights legislation, for example, on advisable lawyers. In the event that we think that it's necessary to have an oral hearing, people will have the right to have representation. The nature of the scheme, the nature of the client group and those who'll be making applications for review mean that many of them are represented in their contact, will be represented in contact with us by advocacy and support groups. That's something that we expect and we're already engaging with those groups to make sure all the needs are catered for. You said that the Government didn't think that that facility was necessary at that stage, but the sense has got nothing to do with the Government because you're not responsible to the Government. Why is the Government able to tell you what is appropriate and what's not appropriate? I think that it was in terms of the founding legislation. When the proposals were in the early stage discussions on what the legislation may contain, for example, on seeing early drafts of that, we were of the view that this was something that we thought would be a good addition. The Government weren't direct in that stage, but clearly the Government is in charge of drafting the legislation to bring forward to the Government? Yes, except that it's Parliament's responsibility to pass the legislation and you're a body that is responsible to Parliament and not to the Government. So I'm kind of perplexed and puzzled a bit about you having to accede to something that the Government wanted rather than something that the Parliament decided and ultimately the Parliament passed on a majority vote, but you're indicating that it's very much since it was the Government that decided this? No, I've maybe given the wrong impression of seeing authority of the Government on that occasion. I think that these were early discussions around what the proposal may look like. I think that we're looking at what the omisman function may look like in terms of reviews and we've seen early proposals. This is one of the things that we decided to propose and put into that in terms of what went to Parliament for them to decide how we should take this forward. You say that you think that most of the appeals or challenges will be determined on the basis of the information that is already available, but given the decision that had previously been made, is there an appeal function where people can have representation should they wish or does that require a change to regulations or a change to procedures? No, I think that if people ask for representation and take bringing forward a review, then we will certainly be open to them. I really do think that it won't be necessary and I think that that's the experience of the existing review function in terms of people bringing forward, but we'll always be open to people making their case in any way that they wish to do. With all due respect, you might not think that it's necessary, but if you're someone who's had a claim refused and feel strongly about it, surely they should have a say in whether or not they should have the opportunity to put the case to you, particularly if you decide that you decide not in their favour. There are two aspects to it. The first is that, given what you said previously about the Government decision, do you have the powers or does it require a change if there is to be representation? The second point is that what stage in development will you decide that representation will be allowed? Under the principles of natural justice and the way in which the process will work, as people bring review requests to us at tier 2, we will share the information that we are considering in reaching our decision and they can input into that. They will see the evidence on which we are basing our decisions and they will be able to provide their own evidence. There will be contact with individuals either in writing or over the phone or face-to-face interviews. I think that there are significant opportunities built into the process and built into the draft statement of practice that we've been working towards that allow people to input into the decision-making process. The evidence that this committee has heard from a whole range of organisations in relation to other benefits is that not only those organisations but the people that they represent actually value the opportunity to have someone representing them. There are some of us in this committee that have had the experience of going to tribunal and representing claimants who have been turned down, but what seems to be coming across is that almost a paternalistic view that, yes, we will look at all the information and we'll do it fairly and they will have the opportunity to provide information to us. That's not quite the same. If you're not confident in reading and writing, if you have a difficulty in understanding, then someone explaining it on your behalf is sometimes a far better option. I still haven't heard an answer to the first point. Do the rules, the regulations, the procedures allow you, given what was previously said about the Government, to make a decision that, yes, representation is available? At what point in the general development of the scheme will you make a decision that you will start to have advocates in on behalf of claimants? It may help if I just clarify how our process and procedure is laid out. The neighbouring legislation allows us to develop and consult on our statement of practice and a set of rules for oral hearings. We are completely in control of that and we have consulted on that and received broad support for what we have outlined there. I think that the oral hearings point may be a little bit of a redhead hearing at this point. I think that the majority of what we are going to do is speak to people. We have designed our process and our service in a way that is completely accessible. That was our decision to mean that people can phone us to make a review. If they would like their advocate or support worker or anyone else to represent them to put forward their case to us, then yes, we will do that and we have full discretion to do that and we will on most occasions do that. Perhaps I am missing something, but in the years where I was representing people at tribunals, there was always the opportunity to write in and to explain the problem, but the whole point of an independent tribunal was that they looked at something objectively, listened to the evidence and people had the chance to explain what their case was. Again, to the comment that I made earlier, it sounds a bit paternalistic that you have decided that it is not really necessary for you to come and explain because you can provide all the evidence that you want, you can get someone to write a letter and we will just do that now. Each of us, the deals that we can stick to, in case cases, gets it that people can say, but I want to see you face to face, I want to explain something to you because they have the right to do that, but you are in a sense assuming that right for them that they do not, well not to see them assuming that right, you are deciding that you will be able to tell from the written evidence or someone phoning up on their behalf what if someone says, no, look, you have got this wrong, I want to have the right to appear with an advocate to challenge the decision, will they be allowed to do that? Yes, they absolutely have the right to request that and so I think as Paul says, presently through the complaints process, we regularly deal with representatives rather than complainants, we have experience of doing that, but also that people will be able to request the method that they wish to communicate with us. I think some of the data that we've received from the consultation indicates that a lot of people wouldn't be interested in that kind of representation and perhaps might find that intimidating also, so that's some of the feedback that we've had through the consultation process, so I think that the statement of practice that we are developing at the moment, it gives choice about how you put forward your representation and I think that that's in response and listening to the feedback that we're getting across the range of stakeholders. I don't doubt that people feel personal representation intimidating and that's the whole point of having advocates and representatives because these procedures are very challenging, but people often find having to write and explain and not having the chance to put forward their case to find that intimidating as well, but I'm pleased that you've now accepted that people have the right to a hearing and to advocates representing them at the hearing. Will that be made clear at the beginning that you have the choice for either for us to deal with it by correspondence or phone or you have the choice of coming to a hearing and you can bring a representative with you? Will that be made clear? We've made clear that people can choose a representative to engage with us and people in the consultation responding to the consultation have been widely supported of our approach and accessibility and openly. The concept of an oral hearing in terms of a more formal oral hearing, we will meet with representatives, we'll meet with applicants and we'll do that. The more formal oral hearing is something that is clear to people when they can request that and when the circumstances aren't where we will take that because it's in the interests of fairness. Forgive me, Mr McFadden. I think what you're saying is slightly different from what Ms McLean is saying because she gave a commitment very clearly that people could have an oral hearing should they want it and you're now starting to put conditions on that. They can request an oral hearing. That will be made clear to them at the beginning that if they wish they can have an oral hearing with a representative. I think what well in terms of the development of the communication materials that we use what what I think what we need to be careful about is making sure that we're giving we're giving sufficient information but what we are doing is we're using our stakeholders to trial and test the communication materials that we develop so I think we need to be careful about the level of information and the clarity of the information that we're providing what I said is people will have the right to request an oral hearing the decision on whether an oral hearing will be held will remain ours as the statement of practice is written at this point in time. That would be an interesting concept if in relation to claimants challenging the DWP on a range of things if the power to determine whether there should be representation rested with the DWP we would be outraged but you're saying that you will retain that power. That's certainly the intention at the moment that that that is what's been included in the document that's going out. So for a range of independent benefits or you know Westminster-related benefits that there are independent tribunals and people can access those tribunals if they wish but in relation to this one you're you will be the one that decides whether or not there'll be an oral hearing. It may be helpful to say that we have consulted on this point throughout the development of this over the past year with both third sector agencies and local authorities in talking through that and consulted fully on the circumstances where we would use a discretion to have a oral hearing and we've had a broadly supportive response to that and people recognised that that's a fair way to proceed. In that particular concern I don't believe has been raised at any point to this stage. A clarity is the system that you're proposing for tribunals or for a hearing the same as the procedure that currently exists for DWP hearings. Have you just mirrored the same procedure because not everyone gets a hearing with a DWP the same way that you're expressing? Is that right? Am I going to pick that up correctly? The question was have we modelled it on a DWP system? Yes, the convener is suggesting that there's two different procedures in play here, one with a DWP where you can request a hearing. From what I'm hearing this morning, sorry for using the word hearing over it, is that you're using the exact same procedure that anyone who would challenge a decision of the DWP would be using? No, I don't think it would be fair to say that. I think, though, that, as Paul suggested, this is slightly a red herring because Aran is, again, through the consultation process, through the discussions that we've had with third sector, with stakeholders. The anticipation is that the majority of these review cases will be dealt with over the phone through discussion with the applicant and in correspondence with local authorities, bearing in mind that the payments that we're making, we're working to very tight timescales, so we have to ensure that we can process these as quickly as possible. If you make a comparison with the existing interim scheme, these decisions are already being made in a similar vein by local authorities. I think that, broadly speaking, there's general acceptance that the interim scheme, whilst there might be some tweaks and changes that need to be made, has been working relatively effectively, so I don't think that what we're proposing in terms of dealing with the majority of these applications, these reviews, through telephone contact, face-to-face meeting or written correspondence, is not a sensible move. I think that what we're talking about is a very, very small number of cases where it's difficult to establish the facts in any other way other than an oral hearing, so I think it would be a shame if we spent the majority of the discussion on that particular point, because I think that it will arise in very few occasions, but what we wanted to have is the ability to use that as an option if there is no other way of establishing the facts in a fair way. A previous meeting of the committee, we heard from some of the third sector and other organisations that either support or deliver services and support, and some of them were saying that the interim scheme had some challenges at the start, but those challenges had been ironed out and had started to progress pretty well. You said that you've had to make some weed tweaks and things in the system. Is there anything that came up as a particular challenge or maybe a good example of good work in practice that you have now incorporated into the new procedures and the challenges that have arisen? What sort of a resolution did you come up with to deal with those? Where I was referring to tweaks in the system, I think that I was more meaning in relation to the Scottish Government's own guidance for local authorities, and I know there's been some feedback in exchange about changes to the guidance for local authorities. Obviously, our service doesn't commence until the first of April. We will have an ongoing review and no doubt there may well be changes to our statement of practice as we begin to see cases coming through. In terms of what the new structure will bring, because you then have tier 2 reviews being assessed by a national body, I think that that gives you a national picture that is perhaps not there within the existing interim arrangements. One of the key factors of delivering and developing a new social security system for Scotland is to have dignity and respect built into the system. I'm sure that that would be something that you would be monitoring. Is there anything that you've picked up in the interim scheme that has allowed you to set in play for the work that you'll do to come the first of April to ensure that that dignity and respect remains in the system and that the person, the claimant and their needs are key to that? As Nicky's lender experience of the interim scheme has been limited to her over the complaints. We've seen a relatively small number of complaints coming through over that time, and to be honest, most of them have been about dissatisfaction with the decision. The things that we've seen have been about procedural matters in terms of the guidance not being followed or being misinterpreted or misapplied. When we've been looking at that, even though up to this point, up to the first of April, we've not been able to change the decision or review discretion. We've discussed or made recommendations to the local authority around aspects where it didn't appear that there was a fairness in it because of a procedure of failing. On those occasions, local authorities have changed the wards or made decisions in the back of that. Beyond that, we don't have the experience yet of any wider aspects of where the scheme may be failing in terms of dignity, respect, fair and reasonable, but that is going to be a role for the first of April. Once we have a body of cases through, we have a bit of experience through that with the team, then we'll be able to reflect on that a bit more in a bit more detail. You have gone through and written evidence steps that you've taken to prepare for the task that you're about to undertake. You say that you've consulted with local authorities and the third sector, including advocacy reps. You've also looked at the independent review scheme for the social fund, which will still be operating in Northern Ireland. You rightly say that that scheme has a fairly good reputation and you were keen to learn lessons from that. Would you like to tell us what lessons you've learned during the course of the interactions between the practitioners at local authorities, the third sector and, of course, the IRS? In terms of our consultation throughout the past year, the first thing that we did around that was set up our sounding boards—one for the third sector of representatives and one for local authorities—through the engagement with those sounding boards, through the consultation responses, throughout the discussions that we've had with everyone, with the IRS and the Northern Ireland commissioner. I think that one of the key things that has all come out very clearly is the need for good communication in all respects. I think that being open and accessible is clearly another one and I think that this came out across quite strongly in timeliness. Clearly the nature of the decisions, the nature of the circumstances that are leading to people making these decisions means that quick and robust decisions are absolutely crucial. The IRS was held up in very good regard and I think that that was clear from the responses to the Government's initial consultation on its proposals here, where the SPSO was always one option, and where the IRS came across quite well in terms of its reputation and in terms of timeliness. We looked at the IRS, we've adopted, in fact, our own timescales have adopted those of the IRS and that's something that even those is going to be my new scheme and we're going to have to get it up to speed. That's something we're aiming to replicate. There's been a lot in there that I think we've been able to to take in terms of key lessons and we continue to talk with local authorities in terms of how they operate the existing review or secondary to review system as well. Have you any idea how many in percentage terms, how many times a complaint would lead to an oral hearing in the IRS situation? I think that this is something that Caramjit Singh gave evidence to this committee in 2014. They don't actually, in Northern Ireland, my understanding and the evidence that he gave to this committee was that they don't have the powers to hold oral hearings. In terms of your approach, you talk in the paper about equalities and human rights assessment to make sure that the process takes full account of the rights and needs of users. Can you tell us what your equality and human rights assessment has found where you're at with that? Is it completed? Are you satisfied with the findings of it? The equality and human rights assessment is not completed, I think. That's largely because we're still in the process of finalising our process and our approach. The feedback from the consultation was very much that this is something that needs to be kept open. It's something that, particularly through the first year, is something that's going to be a live document that will continue to add to the clearly issues around IRAR, around the fairness and reasonable accessibility, all of those aspects that are clearly coming across. I think that that's something that will continue to monitor and continue to speak to third sector organisations. Obviously, we're not up and running yet, so you intend to monitor all aspects of this when the process starts from 1 April. You will continue to monitor what those impacts are. I think that we've done so far a significant amount of work to understand and anticipate what some of the blocks and barriers to people accessing our service might be, but I think that, as you say, that needs to be an on-going review. In that kind of monitoring, has that taken place in the Northern Ireland situation, for example? Do they continue to monitor those impacts? Did you find that out when you were looking at what they were up to? That's not something that I'm aware of. I think that the issues around accessibility and the data that they collect are identifying any issues of equality impact assessment in the meeting. It's something that they do on an on-going basis, but it's not something that we're aware of in terms of a formal process. What they do, which is good practice and which we'll have endeavour to do, is that they maintain significant contacts with the interested stakeholders. They do a lot of engagement. We've done that today, and we need to continue to do that so that we're routinely receiving feedback about what our service feels like for users. So you're going to follow their lead in that regard? I think that stakeholder engagement is key in getting the feedback about what it feels like to use our service. And go beyond their system by allowing oral hearings to take place, if work? Yes, in a number of respects. I think that the oral hearings are something that the Parliament decided to give to us. I think that our approach to taking reviews applications verbally is something that would go beyond what the IRS and certainly the Northern Ireland commissioner would do, where they would mainly take written applications. So there are aspects of that where we feel that we've tried to improve on what's new. In terms of Parliament scrutinising your work in this area, currently the local government committee looks at your annual report and scrutinises based on that. Obviously, you have responsibilities to the Scottish Parliament's corporate body. Is this line of work going to feature in the annual report, or is that going to feature separately? And will Parliament have the ability to scrutinise what you're doing here on a regular basis? We would hope so, and I think that we would certainly report as part of our annual report in terms of our performance, in terms of our accountability and transparency. That said, in terms of our experience of the scheme, as we report regularly back to all the bodies under jurisdiction on the learning that we've received from complaints that we've received, issues where we feel that improvements could be made. I think that this is something that would merit its own distinct reporting back on those issues, in terms of the key issues, the case studies, the facts and figures that we've seen. We wouldn't be in regular engagement with local authorities and the Government as well, where we've identified things where there may be barriers to people in terms of their fair and reasonable access to the review system or the scheme itself. That reporting function, as you currently do, would be universal, so everybody could learn from one body's mistake? Yes, I think that it would be, but we don't have a statutory role in terms of monitoring best practice for the welfare fund, as we do with complaints. We would be looking to identify areas of good practice, as well as areas of concern, and we would be feeding them back at a national level. We are already engaging with the practitioners themselves through the practitioners' network. We would continue to go along to that and feedback our experience and help them to learn from that collectively. Thank you, convener. That's a very helpful commitment, thank you for that. I think that Mr Stewart stole my slender with the last question that he had there. I would like to dig into it a little bit more in terms of if there is a systemic failing of local authority or misinterpretation that you felt was there across Scotland. What would be the mechanism and timescale for feeding that back to local authorities or to the Government, given that you do not have that statutory duty, as you have just said? I think that if it is in relation to individual circumstances, then that is immediate, and that would be picking up the phone to local authority to address something that is an issue for an individual. If it is an individual local authority, but with more than one individual, we would again engage with that local authority quickly. Those reports and decisions will be given back very quickly on these, where we will have recommendations for improvement. We will regularly engage with local authorities and the Government, and again, when and how quickly we do that will be based on the urgency of the blockage to the system, of the concerns of the system or whether or not people are being treated in a way that is not fair and reasonable or does not respect their dignity. Can I come back to individual decisions? Do you need to have any regard to a local authority's budget, how much is left in the budget when you make a decision? Secondly, can you determine the level of payment that has to be made? Obviously, it is a finite fund, a finite budget, and I think that if local authorities have run money, then it is not entitlement, it is a discretionary scheme. We make a decision based on the information that was available at that time or the state of the scheme at that time and the priority of the scheme at that time. The original decision was made and the person had brought their circumstances to the local authority. There may be occasions where we are looking back slightly to where there were funds, but that is something that we will make a decision on at that point in time. The level of award or what has been awarded or how that has been awarded is part of the decision. That is something that we will take into account in terms of our decisions, assessing whether that has been fair and reasonable, whether the discretion has been used correctly, whether the merits of the decision are correct and that is something that we will be able to make decisions on back to local authorities. As well as challenging whether or not a payment has been made on a claimant's part, can the claimant actually challenge the level of payment that has been made? They can, yes. Those are going to be the difficult decisions, because you are looking at local authorities, you are looking at a discretionary scheme with lots of various points of discretion and something has been made by decision makers using their own judgment on the facts and circumstances of individuals. The range of circumstances are huge, but that is something that we will be able to consider in terms of what the applicant tells us, in terms of what the representatives tell us, what we feel is fair and reasonable, in terms of what the guidance says, the regulations say and, over and above that, what the aims of the scheme are in terms of providing support to people in crisis or those who are coming out of care, for example. I think that what we will be looking for from the local authorities is that the decision is clearly set out and the reasons for reaching that decision would include the reasons for thinking that that level of payment was appropriate in that specific individual circumstances, so we would expect to see that within the decision. If you see a pattern, for example, where claims that were being determined in Edinburgh were resulting in a different level of payment from claims being determined in Westlothian, would you have the ability to start making awards that would be based on what may be perceived to be the most favourable, or is that purely a matter for each local authority to determine? That comes back to the previous point that I made. Our role is very much about assessing whether that level of payment has met that particular individual's needs given their specific circumstances. It is very much about the individual at that given time, as well as the level of priority that the local authority has in place at that specific point in time that the original decision was made. I thank you for your contribution this morning and good luck with the implementation of the new scheme. I will suspend for a few minutes to allow a change to take place. Welcome to Margaret Burgess, the Minister for Housing and Welfare, and she is joined by Will Tyler and Stuart Fubistar. Minister, would you like to make an opening contribution to the meeting? Thank you, convener, and thanks for the opportunity to discuss the welfare fund Scotland regulations 2016. Since April 2013, the Scottish welfare fund has provided a safety net to some of the most vulnerable people in our society, helping around 178,000 low-income households, including 59,000 families with children. In the face of continued austerity imposed by the UK Government, the fund acts as a lifeline for communities across Scotland, helping people in some desperate situations by everyday things like food, clothes and beds, keeping families afloat at difficult times. However, not only does the fund meet a very real need, it also signals this Government's commitment to creating a social security system that treats individuals with dignity and respect. The Scottish Government's independent adviser on poverty's recent report highlights the Scottish welfare fund as providing critical practical support with a more person-centred and holistic approach than equivalence elsewhere. Developed in partnership with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and with the support of the third sector, the fund, I believe, is an excellent example of collaborative working. I also believe that that was evident from the supportive remarks made by the organisations that have already given evidence to the committee. The determination to do things differently resulted in Scotland's first substantive example of social security legislation. The welfare fund Scotland Act 2015 places a statutory responsibility on each local authority to maintain a welfare fund and establishes a new independent review process. Importantly, it requires those who deliver the scheme to treat applicants with dignity and respect, sending a clear message about the kind of social security system we seek to create, which is one that is very much centred on the individual. Almost half of the £81 million spent to date has gone to communities in the 20 per cent most deprived areas of Scotland. The Scottish welfare fund is an example of action already taken in Scotland, which provides a firm basis for tackling poverty effectively. The welfare fund Scotland regulations will help to secure this by underpinning the act and making the scheme permanent and statutory. It has always been our intention to set out the rules for the operation of the fund through regulations and statutory guidance. Whilst the regulations may be the last legislative piece of the jigsaw, the fund and its statutory guidance will be subject to on-going review and scrutiny. It is our intention to review the guidance on an annual basis, taking account of feedback from local authorities, third sector stakeholders and any points identified by the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman. I welcome the committee's on-going interest in the fund and I am happy to answer your questions on it this morning. I welcome the commitment to review the situation on an annual basis, the guidance. That is extremely helpful. One of the things that we have heard in a number of sessions, including for this and written evidence from Who Care Scotland, is the need for flexibility. Part of that review that you will have, or that annual consideration in the guidance, will you be looking to make sure that the flexibility is there in the system and if changes need to be made that they would be made? Absolutely, convener. That is the intention of the review. We have very much taken on board and from the scheme, from the outset, both the voluntary and the statutory scheme has about having a scheme that is consistent across Scotland but allows that element of flexibility, which has been very much welcomed by local authorities. We want to make sure that that is maintained. If that is slipping away or that it is not acting the way that we would anticipate, we will be reviewing it and taking on board the comments from stakeholders. If demand for whatever reason is much higher than anticipated and the budgets at a local level are struggling to cope, whose responsibility would it be to top up those budgets? Would it be the individual local authority or will the Scottish Government make a contribution if it is felt that the budgets are not sufficient? The Scottish Government sets the level of the fund, the overall fund for Scotland. We have agreed formula for distributing it to the local authorities but if the local authorities are then expected to manage their budget annually and keep an eye on their budget, they are able to top that budget up. We have said that the Scottish Government will continually and constantly top up. We will always look at that and look at future years. Budgets are looked at annually in any case for the Scottish Government. We will always look at the fund and if it is sufficient to maintain it. We have also looked at altering the distribution method, rather than based on the historic social fund distribution. We are looking at actual spend. For the next few years, we are looking at actual spending on a local authority, so a percentage will be an actual spend and a percentage on need space. That is what we have agreed with local authorities at the moment. In future years, the allocation to individual local authorities could change depending on the level of spending and demand. For the next three years, the bill is up to an absolute need space. Minister, we have probably scrutinised the Scottish welfare fund much more than any piece of social security legislation has been scrutinised at Westminster. We have seen change during the course of the development of the new fund, including the building, dignity and respect of the social security system that we are establishing. Lessons have been learned during the course of the process because of the amount of scrutiny. Can you assure the committee that the best practice that exists out there is exported throughout every local authority to make sure that the fund is the best that it can possibly be? That is continual and will be so. We have a practitioner's group where they meet and discuss in different local authority areas. They have case studies where they look at one area, how they would deal with it, how another area would deal with it and to look at best practice. It should be in a fund such as this. Also now, with the ombudsman doing the second tier reviews, he will be able to build in their expertise and their view on it and what could be done differently as well. That would be taken on board. The social fund teams across Scotland are keen to learn from other teams and best practice. I visited a huge number of the front-line staff and they absolutely appreciate the fact that they can get with others working in another area and discuss how they can handle certain cases or how the guidance could be improved to make things clearer for them. We have a role in that with the guidance and we hope that we have done that. We have put a huge input into our statutory guidance. Every local authority was represented at it, as well as a huge number of stakeholders at our consultation on the guidance. I am hugely impressed by the welfare rights team and the way that they are spreading information and sharing best practice. One of the things that we did hear Minister Tho in evidence was from Huw Care Scotland. That is around the way that care leavers are treated and their ability to access the fund. Obviously, councils such as ourselves have roles as corporate parents and their obligations under recent legislative change that they have. Can we ensure that all those folks who are dealing with the fund and the 32 local authorities are aware of their responsibility as corporate parents to ensure that care leavers are treated as best they possibly can be when they go to access the fund? Absolutely. We have included a bit in the guidance about care leavers and the obligations of corporate parenting. We listened carefully to the evidence of Huw Care Scotland and some of the suggestions that they said that perhaps we could even be clearer in the guidance in a case study, a good example. We will certainly be considering that and working with them to ensure that if training is required, that was another suggestion from Huw Care Scotland that there is some training in that element of it as well. We are certainly willing to take all that on board. Thank you. Finally, one of the things that we have heard from many local authorities is the ability to signpost people on to other services and other funds when they have come to access the Scottish welfare fund. Through the practitioners group and other bodies, can we ensure that that signposting to help folk not only just out of that crisis but to help them not to reach that crisis point in the future? Can we ensure that that signposting continues to take place? Absolutely, because that is what is critical to the fund. It makes it so much different from what was previously in place—that kind of holistic service identifying where the support needs are required and ensuring that, in some instances, it is more than just signposting. There are referrals made to signposting, just telling someone to approach another organisation, but there is assistance to get contact with that other organisation on behalf of someone who has been claiming something through the Scottish welfare fund. There are lots of that going on, and I want to see that continuing. I think that that is an absolutely crucial part of the whole service. It is not about just dealing with an immediate crisis, it is about ensuring that that person gets support and assistance to get on with their lives and not always have to access the fund. During the operation of the interim scheme, a great many lessons were learned, and it has been very impressive how the scheme has been improved over time and how that informed the final scheme that we are now in the process of bringing in. However, one of the things that has been noted and surprised some people is the level of administration costs that are within the total cost of the scheme. Now that we are bringing in the final regulations to get the new scheme in place, are we in a position to say that all has been done to ensure that administration costs are kept to a minimum, and the highest proportion of the cost of the scheme possible is going to grants for claimants? We believe that that is what is currently happening. The initial money transferred from the DWP was £5 million for administration, which we passed on to local authorities for administration. It was then cut by the DWP to £4.6 million, which we topped up to allow the local authorities, the £5 million to administer the scheme. We think that that is sufficient to administer the scheme, and it is a reasonable proportion of the overall budget. I have heard from some local authorities—in fact, evidence that was given some time ago when I was a regular member of the committee—that some of them felt that they could do with more financial support to cover their administration responsibility. Has that been discussed with local authorities, and has that matter been brought to a conclusion? We have had a number of discussions with local authorities about the administration costs of the scheme. What we have agreed is that they will continue to get the £5 million. They will no longer have to do any second-tier reviews, so they will not have any costs involved in that, because that has been passed to the ombasmen. However, we have continued with the same level of administration costs. Of course, as we move on and the scheme travels on as we move down the years, it will always be discussed with local authorities if they come and tell us. However, the absolute focus in the priority is that the bulk of the money should go out there to the people in our communities who desperately need it. With the new responsibilities for other aspects of welfare that are coming along, is there a possibility that we may actually be able to use the individuals and the skills that have been gained by people working within local authorities to spread their responsibility slightly to make that process more efficient? We always look at efficiencies when we move on, but at the moment, the scheme is run and administered by local authorities in every 32 local authority areas. There is a huge deal of expertise built up there, but it is up to each individual local authority where they deploy the staff, which is a section of the local authority, because some local authorities benefit some revenues and provide the Scottish welfare fund or administer it and others that can be the social work department. It is entirely up to local authority how they can most efficiently operate the scheme in their area. However, you will ensure that where there appears to be a wide variation in administration costs within local authorities, you will continue to cap the scheme to ensure that that is not too great a burden on the finances. The funding is agreed at the 5 million in local authorities, and that is what they used to administer the scheme and how they operate that is up to the local authority. However, that amount of funding is agreed, and that is the amount that they get out of the 5 million. In the evidence minister from the SPSO, they talk about the first-tier internal reviews, which should be in writing and signed. I accept under exceptional circumstances, and they express some reservations about that, but they are going to obviously work with it. I just wondered if you could reflect on why we are going down that road. It is not possible to accept in exceptional circumstances to appeal orally. I think that we have been quite clear that an appeal can be made and an oral appeal can be made in terms of over the telephone or whatever somebody can say they want. I think that we have been clear that it is a review of the decision that they can say over the telephone. They want the decision reviewed. Even at a first-tier review, they can use advice agents or someone else to assist them to put forward the review and the grounds for the review. As it stands—and maybe someone can correct me if I'm wrong—as it stands, there is nothing that prevents anyone from asking for a review on the telephone, or in writing, or with the assistance of a third party. If nothing else, I will move to item 3 on the agenda. That is the formal debate on the affirmative instrument. I invite the minister to speak to and move the motion S4M-15227 on her name. Any comments from members? If not, I now put the question that the motion S4M-15227, that the welfare reform committee recommends that the welfare fund's Scotland regulations 2016 draft be approved. Are we agreed? Thank you very much for your contribution. I believe that this will be your last appearance at this committee before you stand down. Thank you for your contribution to the committee and wish you well for whatever you do after you stand down. We will now close the public part of the meeting.