 Good morning everyone. Thank you for coming along to the witnesses as well. Can I just say I'll give you the 20th meeting of the Social Security Committee? Can I remind everyone to turn off their mobile phones please as it does interfere with the sound system. Agenda item 1 is decision in taking business in private. Is it agreed that we take agenda item 4 in private committee? Y cyfnod ar gyfer y cyfnod yw'r ffordd. Fyddwn i'r ffordd i'r ffordd rwyf, ac mae'r ffordd o'r cyfnod yw'r cyfnod yw'r cyfnod. Mae ffordd o'r cyfnod ar y cyfnod, ac mae'r ffordd ar gyfer yw'r cyffredinol yw'r cyffredinol. Mae'r cyfnod ar gyfer yw'r cyffredinol, Hyrrys Trus Scotland, ac am yw Amgwyrdag mewn hyn o'r cyfnod o'r cyffredinol yn Sgoltland. I will start off with the first question, which is a general question, and then committee members will follow on from there. In earlier evidence sessions, we have asked our witnesses for their views on the principles and the proposed charter. What are your views and in what ways do you see the principles and the charter influencing the organisation culture of the new social security agency? In line with other organisations that you have heard evidence from, we welcome the fact that the principles and the charter are on the face of the bill and in primary legislation. That is going to be the major thing that causes a kind of cultural and organisational change, particularly the principles around human rights and as social security as an investment in people of Scotland. That is a real positive step. It will be useful for driving a cultural change in how social security is seen. Equally, I am very supportive. I think that it is really welcome that the principles are set out right at the top. It is the first thing that you see and I think that we would be supportive of that to be maintained. I think that the emphasis on human rights is very important. If there is opportunity to emphasise an extension to child rights, that would be very welcome from our perspective. Dignity is equally very important and we are really pleased to see that in there and like to see that threaded throughout the rest of the bill where appropriate. The one area where I think there is a potential gap that we would be keen to address is in the principles and in recognising the purpose of social security as addressing poverty and inequalities and we would suggest that an additional principle was put in relating to that. Thank you. I think that I noted that on your written submission. When we talk about the culture, would you say that perhaps various agencies, once principles are agreed, various agencies perhaps would be training in regards to the principles that are there on the bill? I would certainly welcome that and I am sure that that would be a good idea. I think that more detail in the charter might help with that too, to understand how the principles could get put into practice and what that actually means in terms of the system and how it works and operates. Obviously, the most obvious way in which it interfaces is in human relationships and certainly how positive relationships can be at the heart of the system is an area that training is always welcome and we would encourage that and at an emphasis on relationships within the charter and the implementation process. Thank you. Heather, do you want to give an update? Just to reiterate really, we would always welcome training for agencies particularly as we are going to have these two different systems working alongside each other. A lot of carers will still be receiving the reserve benefits or supporting people who are receiving reserve benefits. Making sure that there is understanding of how the systems are interacting will be very beneficial in terms of positive relationships and needing to reiterate the difference that a Scottish social security system is going to bring. A lot of people are obviously quite reticent about how the changes are going to happen because they have had quite negative experiences with the current system, so that is going to be really important to make sure that staff who are dealing with people who have had these negative experiences are recognising that and are willing to support people. You hit the very important point, there are obviously 15 per cent of the social security powers that are coming to the Scottish Parliament and the rest are still with Westminster, so would you suggest when we are talking about training for the various agencies and information, should it be in a written form that when people are going along to the agencies and obviously the charter that we would hope would be pinned up on the wall that people could see what their rights were, would it be written information to let people know the differences, what they can actually claim or direct to? That would be useful, yes, it should be available within the agencies, it should be available online, it should be directly provided in claim forms, still with paper claim forms that a lot of people will prefer rather than applying online, it should be available in any way that people are accessing information, it's really really important to be as accessible as possible. Amy, do you want to come in on that particular one? Well, just to agree with Heather and I suppose just if easy read accessible versions are very very important and I know it's a very complicated area but ways in which we can be clear and articulate what people's entitlements are to those that potentially English isn't their first language is really important. Thank you very much, I'll open up to questions there. Jeremy Balfour, do you want to come in? Good morning and thank you very much for coming along. I wonder if I can dig down on two issues around carers allowance and the first one is in regard to at the present link between the number of hours you care for somebody but also that individual has to have a certain award him or herself. Do you think that there should be a division between that that it doesn't matter what that person is getting for an award if you're caring for the individual for a certain number of hours you get the award so we separate the two away, we try to get your views on that and secondly at the moment there's one award only if you reach 35 hours a week you get the award. Some people obviously care for 15, 20, 25 hours and don't get any. Do you think there should be some kind of tiering where maybe if you care for 20 hours you get x amount, 25 etc up to take the 35 hours rather than just having one straightforward award you get it all if you hit that number a more tiered downward approach? Okay both of those issues do come up regularly when we are consulting with carers and speaking with carers so in terms of your first question about the link between carers allowance and the qualifying benefits that is something that has been explored we have discussed this with the Scottish Government and with carers and there's as with anything there are positives and negatives to that. Currently carers allowance is quite once you meet all the eligibility criteria for it is quite an easy benefit to receive the application process is quite straightforward obviously that's beneficial for carers and their families however the downside of that is that there are people who have got significant caring responsibilities for someone who doesn't receive a qualifying disability benefit that can quite often be you know this is anecdotal but it can quite often be people who are looking after frail elderly parents and that can be who are not eligible for attendance allowance themselves because that has quite strict eligibility criteria and so that can cause problems particularly for that age group which is usually people who are in older middle age who may be balancing work and childcare with this caring responsibility as well so there's a definite benefit there to to removing the link between carers allowance and the qualifying benefits but at the same time that would make the carers allowance application process more complicated there would have to be a different way of assessing whether a carer was providing care and I'm not sure at this stage how that would be done how complicated it would be how much that would cost in terms of assessments so that needs to be explored more widely. For your second question about tiered amounts of carers allowance again providing 35 hours of care on more per week is a substantial amount and I'm sure it's quite obvious to the whole committee that people who are providing fewer hours of care than that are still providing substantial amounts of care and again that's going to impact on their abilities to to stay in employment or to have enough leisure time outside of a caring role so yes that's something that we would be interested in exploring more and again it's something that has positives and negatives there would be presumably some kind of not really a means testing approach but again there would have to be an assessment of of how that could be done and what the different levels of benefit were and what the different hours of caring would be and again with something like that there's always going to be I suppose a cut-off where some people will not be eligible but they're just not meeting the hours required so again that would cause difficulties for some people it would need to be looked at in a lot more detail I think before we could make any kind of definitive statement on whether that would be appropriate. Yeah I mean obviously children of Scotland we're particularly concerned about young carers and feel that the current system really disadvantages them in terms of financial support for their role so I mean we're obviously welcoming the young carers grant announcement but we have a couple of questions about carers assistance and carers allowance and how that will work for particularly younger carers so I think we are quite interested in looking at whether a pro-rata potentially approach would work recognising that many young carers mix caring responsibilities with being in school for example but still have a significant role that they play and a significant responsibilities within the context of the proposal around the carers allowance supplement in the in the in the bill we've got a question about job seeking linking it to job seeking allowance and obviously 18 to 24 year olds getting a lower rate of job seeking allowance so we would like a bit of clarity on if the supplement is going to be at the higher rate for everybody including those in the 18 to 24 age range so really I suppose the principle that we're interested in is around ensuring there's parity for carers regardless of what age they are and I think one of the ways in which that will need to be addressed is recognising that caring younger carers are less likely to be caring at 35 hours a week but still have significant caring responsibilities and so I think a bit more flexibility in an exploration of pro-rata approach would be welcome from our perspective. I know that you want to come in Mark Griffin in that particular one. Thanks Cymru. I'll just continue on that eligibility criteria for carers allowance and particularly on those who are caring for more than one person so at the moment to qualify for carers allowance you have to be caring for a single person for 35 hours but there's a situation where you could be caring for two people individually less than 35 hours but cumulatively more than that 35 hours and you don't qualify for carers allowance. I wonder whether you feel that the Scottish Government should be looking at the eligibility criteria in this area and secondly on the Government's commitment to increasing carers allowance for parents who care for more than one disabled child. Do you think that that should apply across the board rather than people who care for disabled children if you care for more than one person? Do you think that the Government should look at that as well? We have been approaching that with the Scottish Government and again just in general campaigning terms in how we approach carers allowance and how we gather carers views on it that's something that comes up a lot as well and we have mentioned that in our written evidence submission. The situation that you mentioned where somebody is caring for for more than one person and it takes them way above the 35 hours a week eligibility criteria that is something that's very very prevalent. I think we don't hear a lot about that but it is happening for sure and it does disadvantage people because again somebody who's got multiple caring roles is even more less likely to be able to stay in employment in paid employment and so it's important that they have access to benefits and to an income for providing care in terms of you sorry do you want to? I mean I think probably we would have defer to the expert here and agree and that with what Heather was saying around you know obviously if the additional caring responsibilities should be considered and you know recompensed accordingly. Just whether explicitly then you think that the Government should be looking at eligibility criteria just now we're talking about not looking at eligibility criteria until they're further down the line on implementing the policy on paying carers allowance for more than one disabled child but whether they should be looking at eligibility criteria at this stage? It's potentially something that should be looked at in policy terms at this stage but I understand the Government's reasons for not wanting to look at it until we're further down the line. It is a big change in terms of any social security agency and transferring benefits across so I'm sure we need to look at all the different aspects of that and it's more important to get things right and to get the initial commitments to carers allowance supplement and to increasing that and making sure that carers in Scotland are supported as soon as the new benefits transfer are over but from a policy perspective I believe it is being looked at and again we're consulting with carers on that to make sure that there's enough evidence and enough information available to the Government and to others to make sure that the decisions can be made in the correct way. Alison Johnston, you wanted to come in. Thank you convener. I mean carers allowance is currently defined as an income replacement benefit and if that is the case I think several of the submissions suggest that people will be being paid at £2 an hour. Now clearly being paid at £2 an hour when you could in fact be looking after several people I mean that is no sort of salary and I think you know if we're speaking about minimum wage and living wage £2 an hour is neither and I just wonder how how adequate do you think this benefit really is and if we're talking about dignity and respect is it really possible to to deliver dignity and respect if people simply don't have enough cash in the first place? Broadly I don't think it is an adequate benefit as you've identified it's as an income replacement benefit it's not particularly substantial and as we mentioned in our evidence submission raising carers allowance to the level of job seekers allowance doesn't always seem to be the correct approach because although people can can stay on job seekers allowance for a long time it is meant to be a temporary benefit while someone is looking for work. I'm not sure of the exact figures but there are substantial numbers of carers who've been on carers allowance for more than five years and will never not be receiving the benefit whilst they're providing care so it is a long-term benefit that people need to survive so I think further down the line we do need to look at what is an adequate income replacement for people who are providing substantial amounts of care but again from a policy perspective this is being looked at it is being considered and again it's potentially something we need more evidence on in terms of what would an adequate level of carers allowance be we need to consult with carers about that we need to know what's financially sustainable it's something that probably does need to be looked at long term to make sure there aren't any unintended consequences. Sorry to add from a from a children's perspective is the recognition of the number of unknown carers that don't get any support at the moment and certainly when children are at school and coming home and having to look after their parents and the huge responsibility of that with very little support available from services let alone financially it's very difficult to see for dignity and respect feature within that so that may be slightly without the scope of the social security system to fully address but I think in terms of the principles and how they're applied I think it's really important that they look at how children and young pupils' care and responsibilities are recompensed as well. I'm sorry perhaps picking up on that particular point you mentioned about the young carers previously and obviously we've got the young carer grant which is coming in and certainly I'm sure we've all met kids that going back to college university who have found it very difficult and you know what I've spoken to them and they welcome that it's only £300 but they welcome that. When you're talking about obviously under 16 years of age have you any ideas how we could support these kids and when you're talking about a grant or it might not just be monetary terms because I'm aware of we in another previous life in another committee we had an investigation and a lot of young kids where didn't want there's a stigma attached and they didn't want people to know that they were caring for their parents with particular problems so you know I'm conscious of what you said about it might not just be social security so I wonder if this committee could be helpful in passing information to perhaps equal opportunities committee or whatever. I just wonder what your thoughts on that under 16 years of age because there is a hidden you know of people there that for stigma reasons don't want to talk about it. Yes and obviously with younger children direct payment is not necessarily appropriate. There's also a number of young children that don't actually realise their carers as well so that just do this and don't realise that it's not part of everyday life and that actually that they should be getting support for it so I think it's about services and adequate service provision enabling children to have the chance to be children so that they have those responsibilities taken off them and so yes obviously we would hugely welcome your role as sort of advocate and for part of the wider system because obviously social security sits within the wider context of social care and social support in this country and that would be very welcome within potentially the charter to recognise the role of social security within broader social care in addressing poverty and disadvantage and wellbeing of Scottish population. Did you want to say anything about that particular point of view? I'm just absolutely echo what Amy said. It's absolutely about provision of services and making sure that there's adequate support out there for young people. We work on the principle that young carers under the age of 16 should have appropriate caring roles relieved that there should be services put in place for the person that they're looking after as a matter of principle that should be happening. Obviously there's a lot of positive experiences that young people can have through caring and living in a family where someone needs care it's not always feasible to say that there will be no aspect of help being provided by them because that's not how families work if they do live in a family where someone is a little disabled then they will be supporting them and helping them in some way and there's the emotional impact of that as well as the actual practical tasks that's not something that can be relieved but yes making sure that there are adequate young carers support services for them as well and that they have opportunities for respite and breaks from caring that the schooling is not interrupted all this requires a number of services and supports to be put in place for them and it's important that adequate funding is available for that. Mark Griffin, do you want to come in on that one? I would agree with the point that you make that people under 16 that there should be wider support through health and social care to alleviate any of their caring responsibilities but with the cuts to local government and other areas while that's a great principle to have. Sometimes it's just not a realistic picture of what's happening on the ground and it's just a question of why someone who is 15 potentially in fourth year at school and has got a challenge in year at school with exams and is 15 and has the same caring responsibilities at home as someone in the same year group as I'm in fourth year but happens to have already turned 16 will get that support and whether it's appropriate to look at a payment and trust through a payment or something along those lines to make sure that people who just happen to be below that threshold but still providing the same level of care are being recognised and supported. There are two issues there. The first is and it kind of comes back to what the convener had mentioned about different legislation and how to influence different spheres of policy. Under the Cares Act which has been implemented next year, young carers are defined as those under 18 or if they're still at school and are 18 so there's potentially a bit of a mismatch there between legislation that supports young people up to the age of 16 and then of course in the wider Scotland policy sphere for young people. We work with people under the age of 26 quite a lot in children and young people's policy so there's quite a lot of different levels there. In terms of supporting families in general rather than directly the young carer? Well just recognise that it might not be appropriate through the social security system to pay someone under the age of 16 that there could be other avenues. Just as an example, I pay my interest to the parent rather than direct to the child so that their caring responsibilities and their efforts are recognised in the same way as someone who's six months older than them. Absolutely, I mean in consultation around both this bill directly and the consultation last year that looked at wider principles of social security, the opinions and experiences of the parents of young carers were that they should be the ones who are financially supporting their children and the majority of young carers do live in family situations where that is possible. Whilst the young carers grant and other kind of financial provisions for young carers will be useful for them, it is usually wise to look at a kind of whole family approach for that whether that is a kind of payment in trust as you say or just more money or more support being available to the family as a whole will generally be beneficial absolutely. Do you come in on that particular one? I agree with my head, I don't think I have anything else to add. Okay, thank you. Adam Tomkins. Thank you, convener. Good morning. I wanted to ask what might be a very specific question that might have a very quick answer, I don't know, but in Glasgow where the city I represent and for all I know elsewhere as well there is increasing concern about a gap in our welfare and family law provision for kinship carers and I wondered if you had any thoughts about whether there was anything that we needed to be aware of as a committee scrutinising this bill to make sure that if you think that that gap is there that it is plugged if it can be through the provisions of this bill. Kinship care is quite specific, it's not my area of expertise and although kinship carers are defined as carers they're not within the client group that we work with unless there is care provision happening so if the kinship carers are looking after children who've got additional needs. From what I've read and understand there can be a gap there and it's down to whether the local authority has recognised the kinship caring relationship whether it's been formalised or not and that depends on what and that has an impact on what access to money the kinship carer has so I think it definitely does need to be looked at just to make sure that families aren't missing out and that is from our perspective from carers from Scotland and other national care organisations if there is a caring relationship within the kinship caring relationship that has to be recognised as well. Yes and I think this is another area where there's different bits of legislation and policy that overlap and I think clarity on that would be would be really welcome. Gwyn Heather's point that quite a few kinship carers and indeed foster carers will care for children with disabilities and it's higher than the general population so I think that does need exploring more and certainly we should be looking for where that links into the changes that have been made within the Children and Young People Scotland Act. I think it's an area that's been under explored actually. Thank you for that and I think you're absolutely right that there seems to be some kind of variation from local authority to local authority within Scotland about the extent to which kinship care is recognised as being a sort of informal variant of foster care that may or may not be liable to local authority financial support. Are kinship carers not eligible for carers allowance? If they are providing care to a young person who's got up to a disability or an illness then yes again it's all dependent on income if they have you know if they don't meet the eligibility criteria for carers allowance then they won't. I'm not sure to be honest how any payment that's received by them in terms of kinship care affects the eligibility for other benefits. It's not something I'm an expert on, it would need to be looked at. Likewise I'm not an expert on kinship care either so yeah I think it's probably worth getting a bit more specific evidence on that one from relevant organisation would be kindred or something. I mean my understanding before we brought in kinship care obviously was lots of kinship care as our grandparents and looking after children if they're not guardians and that did affect benefits and that was something that we had to really look at before we introduced the kinship care. If they got that extra money they'd knock on effect on any benefits that they were claiming in that respect so that was why we went for the kinship care rather than so security or anything else in that but I think we should perhaps have a look at that and explore that particular avenue. Does anyone else want to come in on that particular issue? Just to add a comment yeah I mean I believe it is a gap and I know that in your submission that you talk about that the principles of the bill don't specifically mention poverty or inequality I think you're right about that but what strikes me about this gap is that kinship carers who don't get because they're not formalised arrangements so you may not get the support will more likely fall into the category of poverty inequalities or not properly supported because as the convener says very often it's grandparents who come in because they don't want the child to be cared for by the local authority so they're doing the right thing but they're being penalised for it and I think it might be worth some of the children's organisations just having a think about the impact on children. I know what you said in answer to Adam Tomkins that the carers allowance only applies where there's a disability of illness but obviously we're not talking about that but I think there will be an impact on children if the grandparents or who is the kinship carer doesn't have but is this worth like the children's organisations thinking about the impact on children? Did you want to come back on that Amy? Yes, you're right and I think obviously poverty and inequalities aren't equally distributed across Scotland and certainly kinship carers are experiencing more disadvantage than others and it's another area that certainly there's other organisations in the children's sector that are working more directly in this area that have been campaigning for adequate support for kinship carers for many many years and I recognise that there have been progression and development in this area recently but I'm sure they would say there's more to be done and would welcome additional attention to it. Okay, we'll certainly look at that in the committee anyway I'm sure. Does anyone want to come in and ask any further questions? Is there anything you want to ask over the committee? Yes, I'm sorry I said it okay, where are you going? Well there's a number of areas, I'll try and be brief. We're particularly interested in the top-up benefits area and I would like the committee to consider how that part of the bill could be explored and developed a little bit further. We feel that it's quite limited in what it offers at the moment. We're obviously part of the campaign to top up child benefit, the Give Me Five campaign, which I know the committee I'm sure will be well aware of so really what potential there is to include that within the scope of the bill we would really welcome that additionally. Another area, so I'd be interested to hear what people's views are on the committee members' views are on that. I suppose that the other area where I'd be interested to see where your thinking is is around the scrutiny of the bill. We feel that that part in the draft at the moment is very limited and we would welcome greater emphasis on independent scrutiny of progress and what the actual markers and indicators of success will be of the bill and obviously for us linking that directly to reducing poverty and particularly reducing child poverty, we'd be very welcome. Again a question about how you see this linking into the child poverty bill, which is obviously going through Parliament at the moment as well because that refers directly to social security as being a mechanism for reducing poverty so clearly there's a need to link the two together and it's not really evident at the moment so I think your thoughts and reflections on how that could happen too. That's great. I'm just going to ask Heather if she wants to come in and Adam will bring in. Heather, do you want to come in that? Yes, I do. I have a couple of points to reiterate from previous evidence sessions that you've heard. We would just like to align with the idea that if benefits can be often if it's benefits in kind or cash payments that there should be a choice from the recipients that should be first and foremost and that cash should be default that aligns to the principles of dignity and respect and it's more appropriate in most cases for people to have the choice over that. There are points that were made in our written evidence and in the national care organisations written evidence about short-term assistance as well. There's the potential for that to be overly complex and again in line with other organisations that have submitted evidence it would generally be more appropriate for carers and people with ill health and disability to just have a continuation of that benefit rather than a specific and different application for short-term assistance. I know that the parts of the bill are quite broad looking at that at the moment and the detail will be in regulations but it's definitely something to consider. There's already a run-on for carers allowance for some instances such as when the cared for person dies or potentially if there's hospital admission for the cared for person so it is possible for that to happen. I think that those are my two main points. Thank you very much, I'm glad to ask the question. Adam Tomkins, you wanted to come in on that. Heather has just anticipated a little bit of what I was going to say in response to Amy's prompts, which I thought were very helpful. Thank you. A number of the issues that you raised, Amy, are not dealt with in the bill because the scheme of the bill is that those issues will be dealt with in regulations to be made under the bill and one of the concerns that the committee has been keen to explore with witnesses throughout our inquiry into this bill is whether you think that the balance between what's in the bill, sometimes called on the face of the bill, and what's to be left for secondary instruments is the right balance. Whatever your answer to that question, whether you think that there are adequate means for scrutinising the making of secondary instruments under this bill, whether that be scrutiny in this Parliament or scrutiny by an independent body that might need to be set up that might or might not be modelled under the UK's Social Security Advisory Committee, so the convener invited you to ask questions to us and my responses to ask those questions back to you if that's permitted. Absolutely. Amy, do you want to commit to that one? Yes, of course, that seems to be fair enough. I suppose that we're going to always want things to be in primary legislation because that makes it more secure and future proofs it, so that we know where we're at and what the system is going to be. We can recognise that that's not always going to be possible. I think that there could be more in the primary legislation on the face of the bill than there is currently, particularly around the scrutiny section and the accountability section, section 6, which is just an annual report at the moment, which I don't feel sufficient. There could be something in there about an independent commission, whether it's the poverty and inequality commission, which I know the poverty alliance has suggested, or something else. I think that that could be in the primary legislation. Clearly, some of it will have to go into regulations. I think that there's more that could be in it at the moment. Heather, do you want to come back on that one? I think that Jeremy wants to come in as well. Yes, I suppose just to echo Amy's points and points that I've heard in other evidence sessions. We did probably expect a little bit more to be in the primary legislation, but again, I understand the reasons for the complexities of what this bill is trying to achieve and the fact that it can be easier to change or amend regulations at short notice. Obviously, there are negatives to that as well. I would agree that primary legislation is more secure and is open to more scrutiny. The second point that Adam Tomkins made about the scrutiny in Parliament and an external body is that it is something that would be appropriate and is something that we are interested in hearing more about. What kind of scrutiny body is going to be set up alongside that to make sure that there's adequate eyes on what's changing? Thank you. Jeremy, you wanted to give a little— I mean, just very quickly, just to come back to a point that Heather made, and thank you. I think that it was very helpful, summing up, in regard to whether it should be a castle in like benefit and the default should be cast, which I think is absolutely right. Has any of your organisations done any work in regard to the cost of a benefit in kind? That could prove to be more expensive than a cash payment. Does anyone have any information for the committee where we could see how much it would actually cost if someone said, my preference is not to have a cash but to have a care coming for two hours a day or something like that? I'm not sure if there's anything like that available at the moment. I will have a look and I'll get back to the committee at a later date if that information is available if I can source it. A lot of the comparisons are made with perhaps the Scottish Welfare Fund and similar setups, which is different because that's obviously for emergency assistance, where it might be more appropriate for a household appliance like a fridge or something to be purchased because there's an emergency and that's the defined need. In terms of benefits in kind taking the form of social care support such as a care worker coming in, I'm not sure whether that would always be appropriate. There's already quite a lot of confusion as to how social security interacts with social care provision and particularly self-directed support now that people are receiving direct payments. I have spoken to a lot of carers and a lot of people who receive that kind of support who aren't sure whether social care support will affect the benefits vice versa. I think that's potentially more complicated than it needs to be and if someone's eligible for support then that shouldn't be interacting with the social security system. Obviously it's something that does need to be looked at in further detail and if somebody is intelligible for support but is eligible for benefits then that may be more appropriate for them. It's very difficult to give a kind of broad approach to that because it's so dependent on people's specific situations but again I would reiterate my earlier point that providing cash benefits is far more aligned with principles of dignity and respect and investment in people through social security. Ben MacPherson, you wanted to come in on that one, didn't you? Thank you, convener. Good morning. To something that Amy mentioned earlier, I just wanted to bring you back to that point at the beginning of evidence. You warmly welcomed at the beginning the ethos of the new social security system and this legislation to be based in dignity and respect, as I do as well. The principle as drafted in the bill at one point, sorry, one seat, are you content with the wording as it is there in order to reflect those values and that ethos? Broadly, yes. It's really welcome in terms of framing it, in terms of human rights and using words like dignity are very important and I suppose the important thing is having them up there but also how they're applied and how they work and does it feel like they actually embody the system. It's just a starting point. I'll reiterate the points that I made earlier, which are whether there's potential to specifically highlight child rights within the principles and recognising that human rights affect all humans regardless of age but that we in Scotland have a particular focus on children's rights and recognising their rights within the social security system and the point about its role in addressing poverty and inequalities as well, I would say, is another area that it could specifically mention. The other principle that you might want to consider putting in would be around the principle of accessibility and simplicity where possible so that the principle is as we make things as easy for people as we can. There are some additions that could be made to it but, generally speaking, what's there already is good, so we want to be critical of it. It's a very good way of framing things. Thank you very much. You've set in the given us food for thought in that respect and I'm sure we'll all written down the issues that you've raised and we'll have a chat about them as well. Thank you very much and we'll just suspend for a couple of minutes until we get our next set of witnesses. Thanks a lot. Can I just welcome the second panel of witnesses, Derek Young, Senior Policy Officer at Age Scotland, Norman Care, Vice Chair of the Scottish Flow Poverty Forum, Suzanne Mundy, director and MECOPP. I'm sure you can explain what it is to the members of the public that are in the gallery there. As I said to the previous witnesses, I'll start off with the first question. I'll just do an overall question and then we'll bring in members as they come in. In earlier evidence sessions, I've asked these questions and the views on the principles and the proposed charter because it affects overall so security to the bill. What are your views and in what ways do you see the principles and the charter influencing the organisational culture of the new agency? Who wants to start off first? Derek Young. Norrie seems to be indicating that I should start, so perhaps I should. We welcome the principle-based approach. It is not the most common format or model of legislation, but there are other examples that have followed that approach. We in particular welcome the first three principles, which we think are very clear and explicit. There are some queries about the practical implication of some of the later principles. Some of those have been articulated both in our written evidence and the written evidence that you've received from other organisations such as the health and social care lines, for example. The broader point is essentially what impact on a day-to-day level will the principles practically have. I know that this is the point that Mr Tomkins has raised with other witnesses and other evidence sessions and so on. The lowest level of possibility is that the principles have purely symbolic effect. That would be regrettable. It may well be that they help to shape administrative practice and the decisions that are made by officials working for the agency, for example. That will depend a lot on the practical operations of the agency, which are not really contained in the bill because of the model of the executive agency that the Government has chosen. However, the final question would be to what extent can individual applicants and recipients rely upon the principles when making their applications or when challenging decisions. That is not actually clear from the terms of the bill itself. I think that we would prefer it to be. As far as the charter is concerned, we have largely viewed the charter as a way of explaining in ordinary language to potential recipients and claimants what their expectations and entitlements should be. To that extent, that is very helpful. It is also helpful that the Scottish Government has made the point that they want that charter to be co-produced pretty broadly. The experience of users of the system and people who have that direct experience will inform what the charter says. We also agree with the point that witnesses made in the previous meeting that it should be accessible and that people who have, particularly from our point of view, cognitive challenges and other accessibility requirements are accessible to them and have a real impact on them. However, the structure of the bill says that it will be reporting on the extent to which the charter is being implemented annually. However, there are certainly more robust forms of accountability that are available, and we are not sure that that in itself will be the most effective form of accountability to try to translate the principles that are extremely welcome and extremely valuable into the day-to-day practice. The fuel poverty forum is quite a wide body of interests, ranging from the energy regulator down to colleagues at age Scotland. In terms of our response, that has been fairly narrow and focuses on two very specific areas, but I do not think that we would disagree with colleagues at age Scotland on their response to that. I think that it is helpful that the charter gives more explanation to help people to understand that the principles-based approach is one that we have seen moving elsewhere. The regulator, for example, in the energy industry talks about moving to a principles-based approach, so therefore we are not unhappy with that approach. Thank you very much. Suzanne, did you want to? Yes. Like colleagues, we welcome the principle-based approach, but principles by their very nature are aspirational, and we do have a concern about how they are applied in the day-to-day operation of the new social security system in Scotland. We do see the charter playing a role, but, based on feedback from our service users, there are issues of how the application of the charter is monitored, the accountability of the system in terms of applying the charter, and one thing that came out very clearly from our work with carers was the idea that the charter itself is almost underpinned by a set of standards that we feel are more robust and more measurable. Again, it is about people having redress if they feel that the system has not operated as it should have. We believe that there is a vital role for independent advocacy in enabling people to almost hold the system accountable in terms of their personal experience of the system as well. Thank you. I could just pick up on a couple of things that you said before I bring other committee members. Both members mentioned about the charter being more robust and accountability. I think that it was yourself, Derek, that mentioned about the principles challenging. Could you maybe expand on what you mean by that? I do not want to get into courts of law or whatever, but I just feel as though you are going along that line. A point that we made in our written evidence is that it is principal deeds articulated that the Scottish ministers have a role in ensuring that people receive what they are entitled to, whereas there are other provisions elsewhere in the bill that specify that the Scottish ministers are to do something. It rather implies that it ought to be possible for it to be articulated that it has a duty to ensure that rather than simply a role. I think that that would be a more reassuring form of language. We alluded to the fact that points have been made that we endorse by the Health and Social Care Alliance about what evidence will be relied on for principle E and how do you define continuous improvement for the purpose of principle F? The final principle reflects efficiency and value for money, which is a very noble ideal, particularly in a time of constrained public finances, but it is notable that in debates that have taken place elsewhere about social security, efficiency and value for money are sometimes used as a pretext for restricting either the eligibility criteria or the way in which they are applied. The question that we have around that final principle is what happens when there may be a conflict between that principle and some of the other principles, such as the first one that establishes social security as a human right. The bill itself is not clear—perhaps it might not need to be—but some clarity would be helpful whether in the bill or elsewhere about situations in which the principles seem to come into conflict and how those are resolved. Thank you very much. Susanne, do you want to come back in that one, as you had mentioned, particularly about the charter? If not, I can bring in other committee members. I might come back to that later if that's okay. Absolutely. You're allowed to think about it, not a problem at all. Pauline McNeill, you wanted to come in here. I think that it's been made fairs in the afternoon. First, can I compliment you on your submission? I think that it's really comprehensive and provides a lot of clarity. That's the first point that I was drawn to in the debate that we just had with the convener about whether or not the bill is presently drafted will deliver a principle-based approach. I do think that it's worth spending a wee bit more time on that, because other witnesses have said something similar. I think that it's the central question. Everyone wants a principle-based approach, but is it going to deliver that in its current form? I noted that, in response to the convener, you talked about a set of standards and read and redress for individuals. That's the most important thing. Can individuals rely on the principles that are contained within the bill to enforce their particular issue, whether that's a speedy decision or an appeal decision? I would apply to everything. If you could go into a wee bit more detail, then if the committee were to take a view similarly, then how we could go about fixing it. For example, do you think that there needs to be more in the face of the bill about a set of standards? If there is a principle in the bill that says that everyone is entitled to a speedy decision in the new social security agency, what does that actually mean? Would that suggest that there needs to be a set of standards that is more specific about timescales? What can you rely on if the principle is that and we all have a different view about it? I know that we're going over the same ground, but I'm really interested to get a bit more detail, if it's possible, because I think that this is an area that the committee really needs to look in some depth. I think that that's a difficult one, because very often timescales will depend on local circumstances. Whilst you can talk about reasonable timescales, reasonable timescales are quite difficult to define. I don't think that there's any harm, though, in looking at a timescale that should not exceed an extra amount of weeks. The only time limit that's in the bill at the moment is related to the mandatory reconsideration provisions, which is after 28 days. If reconsideration is not made within that timeframe, an automatic trigger occurs, which is a difference from the way that our mandatory reconsideration as opposed to redetermination happens at a UK level. There will certainly have to be detail of that kind, whether it's necessarily required in the bill or not. I mean, it's a matter of debate, I don't know. You would see a lot of that type of detail, for example, in the Westminster model in the regulations that follow. Certainly, as opposed to standards of decision making and how people feel that they have been treated by the decision making process, there are good models that can be followed elsewhere. Recently, there's been an update to the national health and care standards, which are framed very much in terms of outcomes. A lot of the planning for the delivery of the new agency seems to be outcome-based as well. That's a welcome approach. Whether that needs to be in statute or not, I wouldn't give evidence to the fact that I think it must be in statute. For example, the national health and care standards are not in statute, but we have yet to see what practical impact they have on the actual improvement of quality in regulated care settings. I think that we should try the model that is being proposed but be willing to reconsider it and see if more robust definition in statutory terms of what standards of decision making are to be applied might be necessary. I do think that there are certain situations where we need to look at quicker timescales. For example, in our focus group, the issue of assistance with funeral payments was brought up. The difficulties that individuals who are applying for assistance are experiencing both in the length of time that it takes to establish eligibility but also the length of time it can take to process a payment. There are some situations where somebody has passed away and the burial of the body has to take place within a set time period. We have had situations where communities have had to fundraise in order to pay for funeral costs up front before they have been able to establish whether they are able to get assistance with funeral payments. There are particular circumstances where we need to look at whether we can speed up decision making. Can I clarify whether that is at the moment that the funeral payments are at the moment? Obviously, we are looking at a different approach, so it is just to clarify for that at the moment. Pauline, do you want to come back in again? No, that is really helpful. I have a second question on something that you are certainly on to my attention now that I was not aware of, which is the question of mixed-aged couples. My attention was when you said that, as of September 2018, when the universal credit mixed-aged couples rules came into effect, it will no longer be possible for new claimants to receive pension credit until the younger of the couple has also attained pension credit age. I was quite staggered by that. I suppose that depending on the level of the age gap might determine how annoyed you might be about that. Anyway, I just wanted to get on the record. If you could just speak to that, that would be really helpful. Susanne, do you want to come in on that? I do not recall that in our... I am not sure what to be done. Is there any concern on it? There is concern, yes. There it is. It is your paper. It is certainly in Age Scotland. This is an issue that we have been seeking to highlight. It is little known about, and so I am not surprised, Ms McNeill, that it is kind of a surprise to you. As you have alluded to, there could well be couples in the same household who have a very significant age difference. That would mean that the present rule, when the older of the two, the person who attains pension credit age first, becomes eligible for pension credit. At the point at which the mixed-aged couple's rules come into effect, eligibility would cease to be the case until their younger partner also did. It has a number of potentially detrimental effects. First, pension credit is probably worth about £100 a week more than universal credit, so it will have the effect of significantly reducing the household income. It will also mean that, for example, universal credit is subject to the sanctions regime in order to prove your eligibility for work, your willingness to undertake specific agreed targets and so on. That is not the case for pension credit, but that will affect the household income, even though there is somebody of pension credit age in it. It also brings into possible effect some of the rules that do not apply in terms of pension credit but do in terms of universal credit, and the principal one that will affect this committee on this bill is the under-occupancy charge for housing benefit, which will become the housing cost element of universal credit. At the moment, if you are a pension credit recipient, the under-occupancy charge rules do not apply to you, but if you are a universal credit recipient, they would. For the period of time during which this mixed-aged couple's scenario subsists in the same household, it means that, for that period, unlike now, when the rules change, you could have potentially someone of pension age and above subject to the under-occupancy charge. Because of the policy of the Scottish Government, which is to mitigate the effects of the under-occupancy charge through discretionary housing payments, it potentially means that there will be a group of people who will have a greater call on the discretionary housing payment budget, at least until the rules implementing the under-occupancy charge can be changed. There is a financial impact on the Scottish Government through the operation of those, even though they are reserved benefits in the operation of universal credit. It is a complex area. I have found some difficulty trying to explain this to them, but it also means that there could be an added benefit in improving benefit uptake of pension credit right now, before September 2018. If there are couples who are currently affected by this but who have not claimed pension credit, if they were to do so, they would come in before the rules change, it also means that it would reduce the potential extra liability on discretionary housing payments for a while. There is a potential for the Scottish Government to save money by increasing the uptake of a reserved benefit in pension credit, whereas usually benefit uptake campaigns have a double-edged sword, because however more successful you are, the further financial draw there is on the same Government's own spending. Here it would be a potential for the Scottish Government to improve benefit uptake rates. People would get more access to the money that they are entitled to already, but it would also obviate a potential future spend by the Scottish Government because of the consequences of the reserved change and the Scottish Government's own policy. I have tried to make that as clear as possible, but I do not know if I have succeeded. I think that I am going to read to a visual reporter. I think that it is really helpful, not just in relation to the bill but obviously the ongoing debate about universal credit, because of course the pension credit system was brought in to stop pensioners falling into poverty. I imagine that there might even be an argument about age discrimination. You certainly think twice about marrying somebody 10 years younger than you, so you think that far ahead. In response to that, it is not the only area, but it is certainly an area that you can argue that there is a financial incentive for couples not to stay together if they are on low incomes. They might be financially better off to separate and not be in the same household, because then the person of pension credit age could claim pension credit, but they would not be undercut by living with someone who was under pension age at the same time. I will leave it there. I will certainly be putting in my social media columns that £100 a week is quite significant to lose the changes system, so thank you for highlighting that. I have a number of questions based primarily on the principles that we have been talking about. I just wanted to ask, first of all, Derek Young in particular, the discussion earlier about scrutiny, accountability and redress. Is there a position in your view to think about should the principles have more of a link to Scots or international law, because that is something that has been proposed by other witnesses in our evidence? I am aware of the international law right to social security. I must say that I was not terribly aware of it before the start of the process of this bill. Clearly, it is in a different position from a number of other international human rights instruments, particularly the European Convention, which applies to everything that the Parliament and the Government in public bodies in Scotland do. It is a very useful guide to the aspirations that we ought to hold ourselves accountable to. Somewhere in the policy memorandum, it suggests that the avoidance of criticism at international level that the Government has not lived up to the right to social security should be one of the ambitions of the system. I think that that is slightly unfortunate language. We ought to articulate a much more aspirational and positive purpose for the system rather than the avoidance of criticism. However, it is certainly valuable to articulate that social security is a human right. In other evidence sessions that you have heard, that does not necessarily mean that people have a human right to individual forms of assistance. That is not what is intended. What is intended is that there is a functioning and effective system designed to ensure that people do not fall into destitution and poverty. That the rules are clear, that the processes are fair and that things are explained to people in a way that they can understand. If we meet those aspirations, I think that there will be a long way towards meeting the international duty or additional right to social security. There is a substantive element to it, but it applies, as all human rights or many human rights are, couched in very broad terms. Like the principles themselves, you could say that people should not be left in destitution. There is a broad debate to be had about what that means in practical terms in terms of amounts of money at certain times and regularity to individuals. Those are issues that I would imagine principally for this Parliament to determine. The difficulty around having this debate right now, of course, is that those details are not in the bill. They are to be left to regulations and there is a different form of parliamentary scrutiny to be adopted when those eventually come. What I would suggest is that an independent scrutiny body would assist in the same sort of model as we have with the Social Security Advisory Committee, so there can be detailed and well-informed scrutiny of the regulations when they eventually come. That would be preferable in your view rather than a reference to binding the principle in Scots or international law on the face of the bill? We do not have a very specific view about the form of the binding nature that the principle should take, but we think that it is very important that that be clarified in the bill, because otherwise—and I think that there is a point that Professor Tom Mullen and others have made in their written evidence—if it remains uncertain, then effectively that would have to be resolved by litigation, which would be expensive, time-consuming and probably unnecessary. Thank you, that is very helpful. Do any other parameters want to come in on that point? I will move on. It was important to raise in Meacop's evidence, particularly Suzanne, on accessibility. I took part in the workshop with Meacop service users on that point. The Scottish Government position is that detailed rules around equality and accessibility would be in the subordinate legislation thereafter, and the charter would be co-produced. I think that there is strong support for that. In terms of another principle around accessibility, would that be a very high level, a very general level, just to make sure that that is a clear principle? Is that what you are arguing for? I mean, I'm aware that other witnesses to the committee have asked for what has been described as an equality clause on the face of the bill. I myself am not sure what shape that would take. I think in terms of an additional principle, suddenly I like the committee to consider one based around the principles of equity of access, because I feel that that would encapsulate a lot of the practical measures that would be necessary. For example, in our evidence, we cautioned against an overreliance on digital technology because of the fact that many people will not have access to computers. People may not be digital. I can't even say it. I'm digitally not literate clearly, but you know, I'm me. It was good to see that there was consideration of actually face to face support within the new agency. I think equity of access would be an important principle to consider. Thank you for clarifying that. Just one last point, convener. It's around the point of advocacy that you raised as well. It's a potential principle for inclusion that other witnesses have also mentioned. Would you be of the persuasion that, if there was a right to advocacy, that this should be for certain individuals in certain circumstances rather than a blanket right, is it a right to advocacy that's derived from the fact that me cop, while supporting minority ethnic carers, recognises that, in specific circumstances, for specific individuals, advocacy would be meaningful and important? I think the benefits system as it is is really very, very complex even for people who are steeped in the system. So to ask a lay person to navigate their way through that without support, I think, is very, very difficult. I think that potentially when people are also going between two systems, for example Westminster-based benefits and Scottish-based benefits, that adds another layer of complexity. I think that it's very difficult to determine in what circumstances people have a right to advocacy. I think a lot of people do self-select. There will clearly be people, perhaps in more straightforward circumstances, who feel that they're very competent and able to do that all with minimum support. I think advocacy comes in when people are experiencing difficulties. So, for example, when they're applying for a benefit and perhaps they disagree with the outcome and you need that advocacy then to take forward an appeal or a review of the decision. So I think going right back to basics and echoing what previous witnesses have said, the system does need to be as simple as possible, as easy, navigable, I can't, do you know what? I need to put my teeth in today, navigable as possible. But I would not like to say in which circumstance, whether people have a blanket right to advocacy or only in certain circumstances, I think there are individuals that will require perhaps more help at the start of the process. So, for example, we talked about people, perhaps with cognitive difficulties. I can see a right there to advocacy. That's really helpful. My consideration around it for awareness is whether a blanket right to advocacy is required or whether we only need to make sure that those services are available for those who really need it. It's clear from what you're saying that if we get the system right and it is simplified and accessible that there are those who won't need advocacy, but clearly in certain circumstances and in situations where there's more complicated steps to go through. For example, as you said, if there's a situation where there's a challenge or something to that effect, advocacy would be important for the service users that you see on a regular basis. I'm also thinking that it's important to distinguish between advocacy and other forms of support. Again, if we think in terms of the communities that I work with, language support, which is a lot of what we provide, is very different from advocacy, so it's important to make that distinction. Thank you very much. There's not a couple of members wanting to come in with supplementaries. Jeremy Balfour and then Alison Johnstone. Did you want to come in with a supplementary Alison? Speaking up on what Suzanne Mundy has been saying there about the complexity of the system, particularly when it's running in tandem with the Westminster system, I suppose some complexity is probably inevitable, but one way to deal with that is to offer benefits without an application, which section 35 of the bill allows for. The social security agency could actively look at what someone might be entitled to without them having to go through another application. I suppose it's a bit like the system that we have with cold weather payments and winter fuel payments, which many people don't have to apply for. They are passported from other benefits, and I just wonder if that's something the panel thinks will also help to tackle low take-up of benefits. Is that something that the panel thinks the social security system in Scotland should be looking at? Suzanne Mundy, do you want to come in or Derek? Okay, this may give Suzanne some opportunity to consider. I think that the point that we have made in our written evidence, and certainly we have made in broader communications, is not to just look at the social security system exclusively, but where people have entitlements to social security, they probably have other needs, and if there are different assessment processes for those, that can be time consuming and difficult. For example, it's very common for people with disabilities who are older to have care needs, and who therefore undergo a care assessment if they, as a result of getting older and having established care needs, then want to move locations to be closer to family, for example, they may have to go through another care needs assessment with a different local authority that isn't passported automatically. Similarly, for certain types of disability, like attendance allowance, it doesn't passport automatically to, for example, to entitlement to a blue badge for a vehicle. If there were an opportunity to look at the different forms of assessment, not just including the social security system, but beyond that, and what are the ways in which those processes could be streamlined, then there are people who would certainly find that extremely advantageous, because we hear quite a bit from older people who complain about having to give essentially the same answer to the same questions several different times. I think that that does happen on a very small scale, perhaps with individual organisations. For example, benefit clinics that are run by CABs will often look at underlying entitlements either to other benefits or other services and provide that advice and information at that point, and that certainly has been very, very useful. We were talking earlier on about choice, either in cash or in kind, and it brought to mind about winter fuel payments in that respect, fuel poverty and that type of thing. I know Norman that your group has looked at that in the paper that you have submitted as well, so I would just like to ask the panel what their thoughts are on either in kind, a choice of either money or in kind, and also about the winter fuel payments and the cold weather payments, too. I will start off, Norman, with yourself and then the rest of the panel. I think that a choice would be appropriate for some people, and I am sure that they would welcome that. I think that our concern is where you have a variety of different fuels, and for example, if you are simply making that payment to electricity or to gas, but someone was off the gas grid and reliant heavily on oil. It may be appropriate for some people to say, yes, please provide that money directly to my supplier, whoever that supplier of a particular fuel may be, but it is also about the timing of that. I know that your parliamentary colleague in Westminster might raise this issue time and time again, particularly where people are off the gas grid and having to buy oil and not being able to buy a full tank of oil because the timing of the payment, the winter fuel payment, meant that they did not have all of the cash up front. Again, if you are giving it to a supplier, it limits the ability of the consumer to shop around for a good deal, probably more so when you are reliant on oil or solid fuel or LPG where you might want to shop around. If you are to pay it to a supplier for gas or electricity, you tie in the individual into that supplier. Some people may be very happy with that, but it disengages them from the market and we are doing a lot currently to try to get people more engaged in the market to shop around to think about changing their payment method to think about their supplier. For some people, they will be entirely right, they will be very happy and settled, and we will want to continue with that, but others, for the cash payment, would use that perhaps to shop around for a better deal. It is not necessarily right for everybody, I think, is what I am saying. Susanne, do you want to come in at the end of the year? In our submission, we noted that we thought that there was merit in looking at whether the winter fuel payment could be extended beyond its current constituency. We would argue that fuel poverty is a really significant issue for people with disabilities and long-term conditions, and sometimes by association carers if they are living within that household and there is a significant body of evidence that says winter fuel payments does disproportionately impact on those groups of people. It may be that by virtue of the illness or disability that you have, that you do need to turn your heating on earlier in the year, that you may have to have it at a higher temperature, but currently people who do not fall within the current criteria are not eligible for that payment, so we believe that there is merit in looking at extending that. We would also like to highlight a particular group of people that we work with, and that is the gypsy traveller community who live on sites. It has been brought to our attention that the utility account is very often held by the local authority, and that makes it problematic because people do not have individual accounts, that they actually cannot shop around for the cheapest tariff, and that is again something that increases fuel poverty for particular groups of people. I am delighted that the committee is looking at winter heating assistance, because although it is not the most significant amount of money of the current spend across the £2.9 billion that is to be devolved, it is the payment that touches the lives of most people. Altogether, there are 1.4 million people who receive one or more of the benefits that are articulated in the bill, and 1.1 million of them are winter fuel recipients. I agree entirely with the points that Norrie has made about off-grid properties in particular, and the broader point that points to you on the non-cash payments is that I do not think that you have heard from any witness who has suggested that there should be anything other than a system that the potential recipient would have to elect first to receive a non-cash form of support rather than have it foisted upon them. I do not think that that is anyone's intention. That being the case, it would be helpful to have that clarified in the bill. For all the reasons that have been mentioned, you can look at other forms of non-cash support that exist in the public sector. We have alluded to the azure payment cards that are used for refugees and asylum seekers. Those are beset by difficulties. They involve a certain amount of stigma. It restricts choice about where people can spend their money, and it certainly does not seem to us to accord the broad principle of dignity and respect, which is articulated right at the outset of the bill. For all those reasons, we think that that specification ought to be a requirement that a recipient should articulate a desire for non-cash payment first before the form of assistance is provided. On the broader issues of winter fuel, we have not touched on the eligibility issue, but we have in our evidence tried to make a powerful case for why the current system works well. Although it is perfectly reasonable for people to think that there may be an opportunity to save some money through targeting, every attempt to try and do so could well increase administrative cost for the agency because they have to implement whatever restriction they have put in place, whether it is a means test or something else. It also means that whenever you place a barrier in the way of people accessing an entitlement, it tends to be the people who are most articulate and most assertive who are able to negotiate that hurdle. That tends not to be in the main the people who are in the greatest need. We are very pleased to see that the commitments that different politicians and parties have already made to the principle of winter fuel remaining a universal benefit remains. We just want to put it on the record that we are strongly supportive of that position and grateful that that seems to be supported. However, there is still a provision in the winter heating assistance provisions in the schedule to the bill that allows it to be restricted on the finances of the individual. Given the commitments that various different parties have made to it and the fact that the winter fuel being a universal basis was potentially going to be reexamined during the UK general election, but following the results of the UK general election that seems no less likely to have happened. If it is the case that there is a robust political consensus in Scotland around maintaining winter fuel, that is great, but we therefore would like to see the bill reflect that more directly. Ruth Maguire, you wanted to come in on something that— It is just a supplement, which I hope won't be too controversial given what Derek Young's just said. Susanna was interested in you saying that there are other folk within our communities who would potentially benefit from a winter fuel payment. Derek has made himself quite clear there, but I want to hear everyone else's reflection on whether there might be value in, rather than giving a blanket payment to everyone of a certain age using some of it to target other people in need. I think that going back to a previous question where we talked about underlying entitlements and passports, one way of looking at it may be to look at people in receipt of disability related benefits, if we were talking about extending winter fuel payment system, and using that as a way of targeting winter fuel assistance to people. That is not to cut across the existing provision, but extending it to another group. I think that if you look at the eligibility for cold weather payments, the £25 a week, there is a list of people there who are seen as vulnerable and in need of additional heating support. It may be possible to extend—I am not going against what Derek said in terms of the universality, but if you have a group who, by virtue of age, are universally accepted for winter fuel payment, you may have a secondary group by virtue of need, who would be eligible, but that would not necessarily be a universal group. We have the universality, which I do not think that MDA is arguing to take away, but it could be supplemented by the list of groups who are eligible for cold weather payments. Thank you very much. Given the high-level importance of the fuel poverty issue and the whole question of energy, in your submission under the winter heating assistance, you mentioned specifically that there are some possibilities here, for example in securing discounts from energy suppliers. How do you think that that could be done? If you look at Scotland, it is very neatly split in two for the distribution of electricity. There is a district network operator, which operates in the north of Scotland, and by that we mean sort of Perth upwards, and there is a district network operator that operates in the south of Scotland. The distribution and network charges in the north of Scotland mean that consumers pay a higher unit rate in the north. That is round about £70 a year more if you have a like-for-like home, simply because of the additional network costs. That places those consumers immediately at an unfair advantage that they are paying a higher cost. If you think of something like cold weather credits, that is given just simply as the £25. That £25 will buy you a bit more in the south of Scotland than it will in the north of Scotland. The opportunity for something like winter fuel payments or indeed cold weather payments could be adjusted by virtue of where the occupant stays, and there are very clear and defined boundaries that are in place there. You could do that by that postcode area. I will come in on the poverty issue. 16 years ago, the Parliament articulated a desire to abolish fuel poverty within a 15-year timescale in a piece of housing legislation. That seemed a realistic ambition at the time, but it was not met by 2016, so we are going to re-articulate a new desire and new strategy to tackle fuel poverty. Even for the last few years of its operation, we were not even actually declining in the rates of fuel poverty that was increasing. There is a good amount of evidence that winter fuel assistance or payments as they currently are puts money directly in the hands of the age group who are most at risk of age-related illness and deaths. Every year, there are a fairly grim set of statistics of excess winter deaths that are published. Those points to the fact are beyond what you would even see on a seasonal basis because of cold-related illness—how people are affected by it. It is an extremely valuable form of assistance that works. There is a lot of evidence that people spend their winter fuel payments on fuel costs. Fuel costs are the single greatest element of household spend that has proportionally increased over the past decade. We feel that although there is a perfectly legitimate and understandable thought process to say that there might be some more efficiency available here, the current model works well. To change the model without consulting widely on the people who would be most directly affected would, I think, be wrong and also politically difficult. Thank you for that, Derek. Thank you, convener, and good morning to everybody. I suppose that I start to declare again that I am in the seat of a higher rate of PIP. I start with Derek, but I was to jump in. In regard to two issues, we do not know yet what the Government is thinking about around attendance allowance and whether that would simply be brought over from the present system. My impression is that it is harder to get attendance allowance than it is perhaps to get some kind of PIP. Do you think that there needs to be a re-looking at attendance allowance and criteria for that? The other issue is that, if you are over 65, you are never entitled to mobility, however immobile you are. With an ageing population, within financial restraints, is there something that you would be looking to change that perhaps that age limit should be raised to a higher limit? Is there a discriminatory issue round a challenge that, if you are 64, you can get it? If you are 64, you get it for life, but if you are 65, you never get it? Is that an issue? How much of this would you like to see on the face of the bill and how much are you content to have within regulations and secondary legislation at a later date? Who wishes to start off on that one first? Derek, you look keen on your bill. It was directed to me at least in part, so that is perhaps appropriate. I am very grateful for the question that Mr Balfour has asked. It touches very directly on what for us is the principal issue that can be tackled during this bill's parliamentary passage, albeit that it is not answered in the bill itself, because it is one of those issues that is going to be left but to regulation. If I could, with your permission, answer the second question first, because in a sense that is much more clean and straightforward. Yes, we are strongly supportive of the idea that the present system is indefensible in terms of the effect that it has on people of different ages, and not in terms of the age they are now, but the age at which they are able to qualify for disability-related support. As Mr Balfour has explained, the fact that if you are over the age of 65 when you first establish you have a disability, which would entitle you to financial support, the question is never even asked whether your mobility needs are such that you would deserve a higher level of support, because that level of support is simply not available. It does not matter if you would meet exactly the same test as you would have a week or a month or a year before, it is simply not available. We do consider that to be a form of discrimination, and indeed the Equalities and Human Rights Commission seems to agree with us. They have pointed to the fact that there is a difficulty around the public sector equality duty if the Scottish Government goes through this process of reviewing the eligibility and does not tackle what seems to be a very clear case. There are other recent examples that have gone to litigation. There was a case involving a student awards agency, for example, where it was ruled to be illegal and something that had to be addressed. It makes a substantial amount of money in a higher rate, which is about £57 a week. It can mean well over £3,000 a year difference to someone purely again on the basis of their age, not on the basis of their condition or its impacts. We would very much like to see the Government tackle and the Parliament continue to have a very strong focus on. We acknowledge that there would be substantial financial effects simply to abolish effect or to extend the mobility component availability to all attendance allowance recipients. We did some analysis that suggests that we are talking hundreds of millions of pounds, but it is because the question is not asked that we do not have very reliable bits of data. In some respects, the cleanest and most satisfactory approach might be to abolish the distinction between attendance allowance and the working-age disability benefits altogether. Again, it is not clear from the bill because of the nature of the bill whether that is something that the Scottish Government is currently contemplating. That would allow the possibility, for example, to think about how paying for care needs as well as paying for the additional costs of living with a disability might be treated in a more coherent and holistic way. We have not articulated a very specific costed-out proposal about how that could be done within current funds, but certainly the most important element for us is that the age discriminatory element should cease to be a factor in the quality of financial support that you get based on disability. If that is something that the committee can keep a focus on in the Government response to, we would be delighted. Can I ask you, Derek? Have you met the ministers or officials that have raised that with them? Yes, we have. I met the minister and the lead official on the bill two or three weeks ago. It was a very positive meeting. Obviously, the minister herself will be appearing later for your committee, so it is probably best that she reports on that meeting. I must say that the Scottish Government is aware of the issue, and it has been very responsive in acknowledging the fact that this is a difficulty, particularly the fact that there is a legal problem on a discrimination-based basis that changes the nature of the conversation that we are having about firstly whether it can be resolved and on what timescale it might be resolved. We understand that the immediate focus is clearly going to be on areas where there has already been a public commitment, whether in a manifesto or a statement in Parliament or whatever, to try and shift the way in which the system operates. It is also true that, by far the most important thing, and we would agree with this, is to make sure that there is a seamless transition so that payments made on the day before the transition into the new agency continue to be made. That is vital, and it could well be problematic to try and disrupt too much the eligibility. However, we know that there is a special expert group led by Professor James McCormack, who I know has given evidence to your committee already, looking at disability and carers in the broader sense. We hope that whether it is on the short term or whether it is on a slightly longer term, but not too longer term, that this fundamental discriminatory problem is resolved in a way that is satisfactory for everyone. Thank you, Derek. We will certainly ask the question. Susanne O'Norman, do you want to come in on that particular one? I think really just to echo what Derek very eloquently said, and we do believe that it is an artificial distinction which cannot be justified. Thank you very much. If you could just go slightly back to my very last point in regard to... My colleague Adam Tunk, who is coming on this as well, is how much you've been in the primary legislation, how much you've been in secondary legislation. Clearly, you cannot have everything within the primary legislation, but would you want something in regards if we're going to keep attendance allowance in regard to the primary legislation, or if the Government was moved to say that everyone, whatever the age, would be entitled to PIP? Would you want that in the primary legislation? Derek, you can come in first on that one. You do keep coming to me first, convener, but you know... Well, he ignored me, so I took it, you wouldn't answer. Yes, we have put in our written evidence that a balance in favour of greater provision in legislation would be justified. When you look at many of the cases that happen on the present system, several of them involve testing whether the regulations meet the statutory definitions and criteria that are set out in primary legislation, so it means that people have a greater level of certainty about what their expectations are because something is articulated in primary legislation, and primary legislation can be used as a basis to challenge whether secondary legislation is consistent with it or not. We understand the desire for flexibility that has been articulated, and that is perfectly legitimate, but I think that there is also a need for consistency and certainty. There is a further point that has been made before about parliamentary scrutiny. This is our opportunity as an external organisation to influence the primary legislation process. We do not enjoy a similar opportunity through the affirmative resolution procedure. There is not the opportunity to put down amendments, for example. If the meat and drink or the great substance of what people will enjoy on what eligibility basis is entirely or for the great majority part in regulation, it limits the ability of this committee to get access to expert evidence and to ask questions in the back and forth way that we have been doing today. That would be regrettable. I think that there would be an advantage in having a greater certainty in the bill. Whether it needs to be at the full level that exists under the Westminster model or not, I do not know what practical possibilities there might be between those two positions, but certainly a greater level of certainty would be something that would not just potentially improve outcomes for people but also improve the process of scrutiny so that the Parliament was able to be more sure that it had set up a system that was robust and led to better outcomes. Does anyone have a panel wish to come back on that? Just to say again that we agree, particularly given that we do not know what shape any external oversight body will take. We believe that there is a very strong case to be made for having more actually in primary legislation, particularly in relation to accountability and scrutiny. Close the meeting and move into private session. Thank you very much, panel.