³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Would anyone else like to comment?

Does John Wilkes want to add anything on those two questions?

I am grateful, convener. The contributions of colleagues have been helpful. As Mr Balfour and others have alluded to, section 16 is a contentious section—in fact, from the evidence that we took from stakeholders, it is probably the most contentious section of the bill, and it is those stakeholders whom I am keen to put at the forefront of our consideration.

I recognise and understand the principle of desiring information for audit. It is important for understanding how the social security system operates, its impact, its inefficiencies and efficiencies, and the support that it rightly gives people. It is also important for identifying where there might be fraud and error—particularly fraud, which can have a criminal element. We should all be concerned about that.

I would not support Maggie Chapman’s approach of removing section 16 from the bill entirely, because I think that important work is being done in this space.

In relation to Mr Balfour’s amendment 10, I recognise the concerns that have been raised. The amendment is challenging, so perhaps we could do further work in consultation with the stakeholders I spoke about to understand how the system might work more efficiently. There are opportunities to look at co-designing regulation, which might give people more input than they would have over something that is in the bill.

I acknowledge what Mr Doris has just said and what he outlined in his contribution. It is helpful to the point that I am trying to make, which is that, in relation to section 16, I would like to see further work to put on a statutory footing some of the measures that Mr Doris talked about. I say to Mr Balfour that removing part of section 16 by amendment and not replacing it with something else gives us an opportunity at stage 3 to consider what we might do to put some of those things on a statutory footing. That is why the issue is important—I want to put that on the record.

I am sure that the cabinet secretary will want to talk about some of this in her closing remarks, but perhaps we should think about how we could put different requirements, different forms of consequence and different forms of support on that statutory footing. That is why I have sympathy with Mr Balfour for seeking to take out part of section 16 so that we can return to it at stage 3.

The convener is asking for brevity. I could go on, but I will leave it there. I am very grateful.

We are supportive of the Government’s amendments in this group.

I will turn briefly to Mr Balfour’s two amendments. I recognise some of what the cabinet secretary said, particularly on amendment 126, around ensuring that there is flexibility in the system to appoint the right person to receive money on behalf of a child, and around not interfering or challenging the established processes.

I hear the cabinet secretary’s concern that family court situations might be played out within the social security system. We need to be very careful, and I am reassured by what she has said about the processes and procedures that will be in place.

On amendment 9—or do I mean amendment 126? I am getting my amendment numbers mixed up. In relation to third parties being appointed, I have some concerns around trying to understand exactly the views that have been expressed by the third sector. There has been a variety of views, and this debate has been helpful, but the further clarity that Mr Balfour is looking for from the cabinet secretary would be helpful to have prior to making our decision.

I am grateful, convener. The contributions of colleagues have been helpful. As Mr Balfour and others have alluded to, section 16 is a contentious section—in fact, from the evidence that we took from stakeholders, it is probably the most contentious section of the bill, and it is those stakeholders whom I am keen to put at the forefront of our consideration.

I recognise and understand the principle of desiring information for audit. It is important for understanding how the social security system operates, its impact, its inefficiencies and efficiencies, and the support that it rightly gives people. It is also important for identifying where there might be fraud and error—particularly fraud, which can have a criminal element. We should all be concerned about that.

I would not support Maggie Chapman’s approach of removing section 16 from the bill entirely, because I think that important work is being done in this space.

In relation to Mr Balfour’s amendment 10, I recognise the concerns that have been raised. The amendment is challenging, so perhaps we could do further work in consultation with the stakeholders I spoke about to understand how the system might work more efficiently. There are opportunities to look at co-designing regulation, which might give people more input than they would have over something that is in the bill.

I will make a brief contribution, if I may. I have heard what the cabinet secretary said about amendments 95 and 96, and I have read the purposes and the explanation that it is an approach to tidying up issues in the bill. However, I share the concerns that have been raised about SCOSS perhaps feeling that its power is weakened somewhat and I think that we have to guard against that.

I would be keen for the cabinet secretary to reflect on that in summing up, particularly on the powers and duties that Mr Balfour was referring to. The points in amendment 11 about increasing the powers of scrutiny are very important. Ahead of our stage 3 consideration, we might wish to reserve judgment on a number of those items, but I am keen to put that on the record and try to get some clarity.

In the context of a wider debate about the devolution of the winter fuel payment, the Poverty and Inequality Commission’s advice on whether the payments should be means tested said that that should be explored. What is the cabinet secretary’s view on that advice, which came from her own commission?

I will speak briefly in support of the amendment. The principle is well established: the principle of uprating UK benefits has been established and the new Government has committed to it. Organisations that support people, particularly those in the disabled community, expect uprating. On the basis of the principle and intent, it is the right thing to do.

Similar to what I have said previously, there is a desire to ensure that care leavers are well supported and that the payments come on stream at the right time.

I have a degree of sympathy with Jeremy Balfour’s amendment 1 in ensuring that the Government produces relevant regulations. We have often seen things not happen, and having timescales is important. I would add the caveat that it is important for the system to be designed by people who are care experienced, who sit within the well-established structures across the work that has been done on the Promise and on other issues. When the committee took evidence at stage 1, we spoke about that. As I said, I have a degree of sympathy with the idea of trying to compel ministers to do that.

On amendment 2 and Jeremy Balfour’s concern about the timing of the election and the implementation of regulations, there could be a negative impact, depending on the outcome of the election and who forms the Government, but it could go the other way, too, of course: someone might want to change the regulations to make them more wide ranging or do something different, depending on further consultation and on what happens with different groupings. It works both ways, so I perhaps have less sympathy with amendment 2.

We are happy to support amendment 27, in the name of the cabinet secretary, given the tidying-up, technical nature of it.