���˿���

I have nothing to add.

Amendment 104 agreed to.

Section 25, as amended, agreed to.

Section 26 agreed to.

Long title agreed to.

Good morning, convener. The Scottish Government’s amendments 52 and 53 are technical changes to clarify that an individual’s eligibility to receive assistance has no bearing on whether an appointee may act on their behalf. An appointee may act in connection with a determination, even if the result of that determination is that the individual is not eligible.

Amendments 54, 55 and 56 are minor drafting amendments relating to terminology: they change the words “their” and “they are” to “the person’s” and “the person is”, respectively, to avoid any potential ambiguity as to whom is being referred to. It has no substantive effect on the operation of the provision or policy.

Amendment 102 corrects an error in the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018. My officials, while considering other amendments to the bill, identified that section 85B(5) of the 2018 act on appointees is not included in the list of negative procedure powers in section 96(3). Amendment 102 amends section 24 of the bill to correct that. I ask the committee to support amendments 52 to 56 and amendment 102.

Amendment 126, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, seeks to allow Scottish ministers to appoint a person who already has authority to act on behalf of a child—for example, someone with existing parental responsibilities and rights. I again thank Mr Balfour for his on-going interest and support in relation to ensuring that we make payments to the right person and based on the best interests of disabled children. That is, I think, our shared aim, and I will explain why I do not think that the amendment will meet that aim.

I believe that amendment 126 could create uncertainty or an unnecessary additional step for parents who, in most cases, already have the right to be their child’s legal representative.

Social Security Scotland already has procedures in place to ensure that the child disability payment goes to someone who is suitable to manage that payment on behalf of the child. If Social Security Scotland receives information that suggests that persons may no longer be suitable to manage payments, it will take action urgently. It will also ensure that payments are suspended when there is a risk of financial abuse or when someone is no longer able to continue managing the assistance.

I am concerned that amendment 126 could result in Social Security Scotland or the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland being used as an arena for some separated parents to play out their disputes, with neither being suited to fully arbitrate such disputes. I believe that that would be a negative outcome for Social Security Scotland, the tribunal and the child, particularly when there are processes in place to manage such disputes. I have written to Mr Balfour to provide more information, and I hope that he has had the opportunity to reflect on that additional information.

For those reasons, the Government does not support amendment 126, and I ask Mr Balfour not to press it.

I turn to Jeremy Balfour’s amendment 9, which seeks to put third-party representatives on a statutory footing by setting out existing policy and processes in primary legislation. Nomination of a third-party representative can already be achieved under common law using a mandate form, and the process has been in place at Social Security Scotland for more than four years. Clients are not restricted to using Social Security Scotland’s mandate. They can nominate a third-party representative using other methods, such as over the phone or by submitting an organisation’s own mandate.

I understand the motivation behind amendment 9. I assure the committee that the Government continues to listen to clients and stakeholders and will seek to streamline the administrative process for nominating a third-party representative as much as possible. For example, for the launch of the pension-age disability payment, we have integrated a mandate into the application form, reducing the need for any additional forms or phone calls from the client.

I am not persuaded that we should remove the flexibility to respond quickly to feedback and to continuously improve our processes by setting out such operational detail in primary legislation. We have heard similar things from organisations that regularly act as third-party representatives in connection with social security. Citizens Advice Scotland told us that it does not support amendment 9. CAS said:

“The insertion of this process into legislation and the addition of the word ‘must’, may create operational difficulties”,

noting that representatives can change in the course of a client journey.

Therefore, although I very much respect the intent behind amendment 9, I encourage Mr Balfour not to press it.

I move amendment 52.

Yes, I certainly will. Mr Stewart is right to point out the pros and cons of putting something in primary legislation.

I absolutely want to put on the record that, under this Government, there will never be sanctions on social security—never. The reason for that is that they are absolutely ineffective as well as immoral. Therefore, there will never be a sanction, but we need a robust system. I can provide an example of why that might be to the benefit of the client. If we begin a process and we then receive information that there has been a massive overpayment building up—for example, to a vulnerable client—the last thing that we would want to do is to allow the overpayment to continue to build up for even more time, because, at some point, it would have to be paid back. Therefore, there are reasons, which are to the client’s benefit and advantage, for ensuring that the information is provided.

Mr Balfour places a lot of weight on the fact that we do not need this power because we have other powers in the previous act, but I simply have to disagree with him on that. Section 52 of the 2018 act allows for determinations without application, as set out in regulations, but that can be done only in order to make a determination because of, for example, a change of circumstances and overpayment. This is different, and therefore the powers that Mr Balfour suggests are in section 52 of the 2018 act would not assist us in this process. However, that points to the fact that we already have suspension powers that are very carefully used in the social security system.

A number of members have rightly talked about safeguarding, which is critical for what we are doing. Again, I think that we are all coming at this from the same point. The safeguards in the bill as drafted set out that individuals have a right to request withdrawal of information and a right to support for a response to Social Security Scotland. There are also safeguards in the 2018 act. Mr O’Kane raises a really important point. Again, I will need to reflect on what could be done between stages 2 and 3 and what should be in the bill itself. However, Mr O’Kane is right to point out that it is very important that, as the agency moves forward, it does so in conjunction with stakeholders. That is the way in which the guidance on fraud and error was developed when it was first introduced. It is the way in which the agency always develops guidance. It does not sit there and do it unilaterally. There is very much an openness to learn and adapt.

It is important that, while we are still working through what that operational process will look like, the stakeholders will have an opportunity to get involved in its development. However, I will reassure the committee on certain aspects. The process will be designed to be as sympathetic as possible to circumstances while maintaining statistical rigour. The individuals who are selected will have access to support. There will be scope for people to provide the required information in a range of formats. Reasonable timescales will always be in place to gather that information. People can ask to have a request withdrawn if they think that they have good reason.

Suspension and determination without application will only ever take place when people have received numerous reminders and timeframes. I absolutely appreciate the fact that members want to ensure that that is done not just in letters or in a way that might not be useful to a vulnerable client but in a way that is sympathetic to vulnerabilities. Stakeholders and the agency need to work together on that.

For the sake of near brevity, I end my remarks there.

The Government does not support amendment 14, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, although I acknowledge his point that some people might wish to have an in-person hearing. I also very much agree that it is important for clients to have that choice.

When the SCTS gave evidence to the committee in April, it advised that, during Covid, the chamber started operations with telephone hearings as the default and that some users enjoyed and appreciated that format. It also advised that, where appellants want a certain type of hearing, the tribunal will accommodate their choice, unless there is a compelling reason not to do so.

I also understand from the session earlier this year at which the SCTS gave evidence that it is making improvements to the service to allow people to choose the type of hearing that best suits them, including in-person hearings, and to express their preference through various channels. Moreover, I understand that the number of in-person hearings, although still small in comparison to pre-pandemic levels, is increasing. Therefore, I do not think it necessary to introduce a presumption in legislation, if there is already a process in place to allow clients to choose.

I very much encourage the committee to consider the fact that some people find a phone or video hearing much less daunting than an in-person hearing, or they might well find it more convenient and that it fits in with their day-to-day responsibilities and commitments. I fear that a presumption of an in-person hearing will have the unintended consequence of pushing people towards a type of hearing that they do not want and which does not best suit their needs.

The only other point that I would make—and I would have to refer back to the record for this—is that the figures that Mr Balfour referred to were, I think, for the appeals that were due under the DWP system, not the Social Security Scotland system.

Before I speak to the individual amendments in the group, it might be helpful to offer some context on the development of the provisions and the rationale that underpins them. I recognise that some stakeholders and members have raised concerns about what is being proposed and I hope to address those today.

First, let me be clear that the ethos of treating individuals with fairness, dignity and respect is the bedrock on which our social security system is built. I am content that nothing in this section of the bill runs contrary to that ethos. As a Government minister, I have a duty to ensure that I am stewarding public finances responsibly and take that duty very seriously. Value for money is also one of the fundamental social security principles in section 1 of the 2018 act.

In its 2021-22 annual audit report, Audit Scotland considered it a matter of priority for the agency to develop the capability to assess the levels of fraud and error present within its case load. Ministers and accountable officers also have a duty under the Public Finance and Accountability (Scotland) Act 2000 to understand the levels of fraud and error that are present within the devolved social security system. It is therefore crucial that the agency can produce robust estimates. In developing the provisions, we have sought to balance those duties with our ethos of fairness, dignity, and respect and with the principle of value for money. I am content that we have struck the right balance to protect individuals and the public purse.

I will speak first to the non-Government amendments, before moving to the Government amendment in my name. Amendment 10, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, would remove from the bill the provisions that allow the Scottish ministers to make a decision to suspend entitlement in cases where the agency has repeatedly and unsuccessfully tried to gather the necessary audit information.

Although I recognise that the laudable aim of the amendment is to protect individuals from having their entitlement suspended unnecessarily as part of the audit process, I cannot support it. When repeated attempts to obtain the required information have not been successful, the agency must be able quickly to establish that the individual remains entitled to the assistance and that significant overpayments are not being accrued. We might, for example, have to establish whether the individual still resides in Scotland and thereby meets the necessary residency criteria.

Following detailed consideration of options, suspension has been identified as the most effective tool to ensure that people participate in the audit process. I hope that the committee will recognise that it is a proportionate intervention where, as we clearly intend, it is applied in line with our ethos of treating people with dignity, fairness and respect.

Although the suspension powers are new, the committee should bear in mind that they are entirely consistent with the Scottish ministers’ existing powers to suspend assistance where they require information to make a determination of entitlement. If somebody stops responding to Social Security Scotland, that will rightly raise a concern. The existing suspension powers are in place so that people and the public purse can both be protected. Removing the suspension powers from this part of the bill would not, therefore, prevent the possibility of suspension altogether. It would simply undermine the whole point of taking the powers in the first place.

However, the existing powers may be used only in situations where ministers require information to decide whether someone is still entitled to assistance—for example, where somebody has stopped responding to Social Security Scotland’s correspondence. They could not be used to request information to inform a statistical sample. That is one reason why the additional suspension powers in part 6 are required. The other reason is that we consider it to be more transparent to place the relevant powers in the relevant part of the primary legislation.

I reiterate that a decision to suspend payments is not one to be taken lightly and that it will only ever be done when the agency has made extensive and repeated efforts to gather the necessary information for the audit process. I hope that that further reassures the committee that safeguards are built into the process. Individuals will have the right to ask the Scottish ministers to review the decision to suspend their assistance, and any suspended assistance will be backdated if they subsequently respond to the request for information. Therefore, the Scottish Government cannot support amendment 10.

Maggie Chapman’s amendment 58 would remove the provisions in relation to information fraud in their entirety. I will also deal at this point with amendments 99 and 103, which I understand are simply consequential. My officials undertook a detailed options appraisal on how to provide an audit framework and considered best practice for gathering such information in other parts of the UK and other countries, and that work informed the development of the provisions.

If amendment 58 was agreed to, the agency would be left with no powers to require information from individuals. It would be able to gather information only from individuals who opted to participate in the audit process. That self-selection of participants would likely mean that those who knew that they should have reported a change of circumstances but did not do so and those who knew that they were claiming under false pretences would simply not participate. The approach would also be inconsistent with similar mandatory client survey approaches that are conducted in other countries, including the rest of the UK, Ireland, Canada and Australia.

Amendment 58 would damage the validity of any data that was gathered and it would prevent the agency from responding effectively to Audit Scotland’s recommendation. It would arguably cut across ministers’ duties under the Public Finance and Accountability (Scotland) Act 2000 to accurately assess levels of fraud and error in the case load.

However, I recognise that stakeholders may still have concerns in that area, and I reassure the committee that my officials will work to address them, including through public consultation. We have included safeguards in the process to ensure that individuals will be supported to participate, with the right to an advocate or supporter. As ever, we will continue to engage and work with stakeholders as the bill progresses and any subsequent legislation is developed.

I committed to lodge my amendment 57 at stage 1 and I urge the committee to support it. It will place a duty on the Scottish ministers to undertake a public consultation on the categories of individuals who should be exempt from participation in the information for audit process. Although it would not be appropriate to prejudge the results of that or indeed any future consultation, or to definitively list types of individuals who would be exempt from providing information, it may help the committee if I offer an example of a category that could be included in the regulations. Initial policy discussion suggested that those whose entitlement has recently been reviewed would automatically be exempt from participation. We will, of course, welcome stakeholder views on other categories of people who should be exempt from the exercise.

I hope that amendment 57 further illustrates our commitment to work with stakeholders and address any concerns that they have. As I have outlined, the provisions seek to balance two different sets of priorities. As the committee noted in its stage 1 report, that is not easy to achieve. However, as a Government minister, I have a duty to ensure that the public purse is protected and that funds are spent wisely and appropriately. At the same time, that cannot come at a cost of departing from our principles and the ethos of treating people with dignity, fairness and respect. I am content that we have struck the correct balance in the bill’s provisions.

It is not feasible, for the reasons that I have outlined, for the agency not to undertake audit activity to assess the levels of fraud and error in its case load. However, I am aware that some stakeholders have concerns about what is proposed. I hope that the measures and safeguards that we have outlined will help to ease some of those concerns.

I move amendment 57.

The Scottish Government cannot support amendments 118 to 125, in the name of Jeremy Balfour. The amendments relate to process appeals at the First-tier Tribunal. That is where clients can challenge process decisions such as if Social Security Scotland rejects an application or a redetermination request as invalid if it was not submitted in the correct form or was incomplete.

The First-tier Tribunal can decide whether a process decision made by Social Security Scotland was right. In addition, it can decide that more information is needed to make an application or a redetermination request valid, and it can instruct Social Security Scotland to seek that information from the client.

Process appeals only look at process decisions. They do not cover the level of an award or overall entitlement, which are covered as part of redeterminations and appeals.

Amendments 118 to 125 would mean that, following a process appeal, Social Security Scotland would have to make a determination of entitlement in scenarios in which the tribunal has said that more information is needed, regardless of whether that additional information is provided by the client. That is unfair, as clients who have made a process appeal would be treated differently from clients who have also submitted an invalid application but who did not seek a process appeal. It could also disadvantage anyone who received a decision from the tribunal during a process appeal that Social Security Scotland was correct to reject their application or redetermination request.

In practical terms, if Scottish ministers do not have the required information, as set out in the 2018 act, they are not in a position to make a determination of entitlement. An example of that would be a client not submitting part 2 of an application for a disability benefit, because part 2 of the application contains information about a client’s needs and eligibility for that disability benefit.

The Government does not, therefore, support amendments 118 to 125, and I ask Mr Balfour not to press them.

The Scottish Government does not support amendments 116 and 117, which would allow people to appeal a decision of the First-tier Tribunal in the Upper Tribunal. We do not consider the amendments necessary. Most process appeals are based on the facts of the appeal—for example, whether a client has completed a benefit application correctly or submitted a redetermination request on time—while Upper Tribunal appeals can be brought only on a point of law. The number of process appeals received to date is very small, and my understanding is that, if required and where appropriate, the First-tier Tribunal may seek guidance from the Upper Tribunal in circumstances in which a First-tier Tribunal has to consider whether the appellant had a good reason for requesting a redetermination late.

As such, the Government does not support amendments 116 and 117. I ask Mr Balfour not to press amendment 116 and not to move amendment 117.

This group contains a total of 26 Scottish Government amendments, all about liability for assistance paid in error. During stage 1, we heard concerns from stakeholders and members that, although the provisions in the bill are welcome in principle, they are quite confusing. I have listened to those concerns and we have, accordingly, redrafted the provisions on overpayment liability in their entirety to set out more clearly our approach to that.

Before I turn to the substantive change, amendments 25, 26 and 51 in my name close a gap in the 2018 act in relation to assistance paid in error. As the committee is aware, liability for overpayments arises from section 63 of the 2018 act or, in the case of the Scottish child payment, the corresponding regulations made under section 79. Currently the provisions for deductions in the schedules for assistance paid under chapter 2 of part 2 of the 2018 act allow the Scottish ministers to make a deduction only in respect of overpayment of assistance paid under the 2018 act, whereas the Scottish child payment regulations provide for deduction for overpayments of assistance either under the 2018 act or under the Scottish child payment regulations.

In practice, that means that an overpayment of Scottish child payment or any other form of assistance that is created using top-up powers in the future, cannot be repaid by deduction from any other on-going benefit. If a person has an overpayment in their adult disability payment, that can be repaid by deduction from the Scottish child payment, but not the other way around.

Deductions are often a preferred and simple method for someone to repay an overpayment, as they are set at a manageable level. As, I am sure, the committee is aware, deductions may only be made at a reasonable level that takes into account individual financial circumstances and in order to prevent hardship, and there are challenge rights.

Amendment 51 therefore closes a gap and ensures that individuals have the convenience of knowing that deductions for overpayments from any form of on-going assistance can be recovered from another in accordance with our long-standing policy position. It does that by inserting a new provision into the deduction provisions in the schedules of the 2018 act to include any liabilities arising from any top-up assistance regulations.

Amendments 25 and 26 also future proof the 2018 act by mirroring the deduction provisions in the new schedule for childhood assistance and, if approved, they will ensure that the recovery of overpayments of Scottish child payment or any future top-up payment is in line with all other forms of devolved assistance.

The Scottish Government’s amendments 29 to 34 have one overarching purpose, which is to provide greater clarity around the liability for any assistance paid in error for individuals and for representatives who act on their behalf. When the bill was introduced, it had separate sections for the liability of individuals and for the liability of their representatives. As I noted at stage 1 of the bill, it became clear that some stakeholders were confused about what was being proposed and we have reflected on what we can do to make things easier and clearer.

The amended text in the proposed new sections 63, 63A and 63B of the 2018 act deals with the liability of individuals and their representatives and they simplify and clarify the provisions.

Despite the large number of amendments in the group, I reassure the committee that the two key principles at introduction remain unchanged. First, an individual’s representative will be liable for overpaid assistance only where they have benefited from the overpayment. Secondly, liability for both individuals and representatives will arise from a decision of the Scottish ministers rather than automatically. That will allow us to create a system of reviews and appeals rather than people having to challenge liability in the sheriff court.

The amended section 63 will set out the circumstances in which Scottish ministers may decide where an individual or their representative is liable for an overpayment. Some stakeholders were concerned that the provisions did not make clear enough how liability would be decided between an individual and their representative, so we have clarified that. The new provisions retain key concepts from the 2018 act, such as definitions of error and fault and what should be considered in deciding whether an error is the sort of error that a person could reasonably have been expected to notice. I want to be crystal clear that the protections of the 2018 act will remain in place.

The proposed new section frames the questions around liability in a more straightforward manner, but the underlying concepts, the policy intent and the implementation remain the same. Whereas the 2018 act contains exclusions from liability, the provisions have been simplified and they now focus on establishing when someone is liable for an overpayment, rather than when they are not. I trust that the committee agrees that that is a clearer way to set out how liability applies.

Amendments 30, 31 and 32 will remove the sections of the bill that are replaced by the text in proposed new sections 63A and 63B.

Amendments 33 and 34 relate to section 69 of the 2018 act, which focuses on the liability for assistance that is given for a period after death. Sections 12(2) and 12(3) of the bill as introduced would amend section 69 of the 2018 act, renaming and modifying it to specify that, if a decision was made on liability after a person had died, their estate would become liable to repay the sums that the person would have been liable for had they not died. We reflected on that following stage 1, and we have instead made provision for that in subsections (10) and (11) of the modified section 63 that is set out in amendment 29. That will make the drafting clearer by covering all liability decisions in the same place. Amendments 33 and 34 therefore delete the changes that the bill proposes to section 69 of the 2018 act.

Amendment 33 will also allow the Scottish ministers to recover any assistance that was paid in the period after an eligible person has died, whether that was a result of a determination or some other error, such as a systems error.

The remaining amendments in the group—amendments 35 to 50—are minor technical amendments that make consequential changes to the bill to ensure that the section numbers and references to individuals or their representatives are consistent with the newly inserted provisions.

I move amendment 25.

I thank Mr Balfour for lodging his amendments and for his and other members’ continued support for carers across the country. Mr Balfour is right to state once again the important role that carers play.

However, the Government cannot support Mr Balfour’s amendments 3 and 4. The Scottish Government is transforming financial support for unpaid carers in Scotland, by recognising the value of unpaid care and providing greater stability and support. Carer support payment, which is available in 13 local authority areas and will launch nationally from November, is already extending support to more carers and providing an improved service, with further key changes planned. The committee will also be well aware that, when social security powers were devolved, one of the first actions was to make additional payments to carers.

Mr Doris is quite right to point out that the Government is already committed to extending, from eight to 12 weeks, support for carers after the loss of a cared-for person. My officials are already working to deliver that, including engaging with the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that the necessary arrangements are made to protect carers’ wider support. To ensure that carers who are already getting carers allowance are not disadvantaged, we will make that change once the process of case transfer is complete.

Amendment 3 seeks to extend that run-on to 24 weeks. It would be best if we looked at that in the future, once we have delivered the extension to 12 weeks, to allow more detailed consideration of implications for budgets.

Mr Balfour will agree that any change to entitlement that would result in increased costs for the Scottish Government, which are not covered through the block grant adjustment, needs to be carefully considered. Indeed, many of his colleagues remind me of that responsibility in the chamber and point out that the Scottish Government already invests £1.1 billion in social security, on top of the block grant adjustment. His colleagues raise that as a concern, rather than something that the Government should be proud of. However, I am proud of it.

Further consideration and discussions with the DWP would be needed on any extension to 24 weeks. As we have discussed before in the committee, that is important, because we do not want to adversely affect any other support that carers rely on. Many carers receive extra support and other benefits, such as universal credit, because of their entitlement to the carer support payment, in the same way as carers who get carers allowance. The more carer support payment diverges from carers allowance, the greater the risk to carers’ continued eligibility for that extra support. I urge members not to pass anything into legislation that would put other payments in jeopardy, no matter how good the intent behind those amendments.

I turn to amendment 4, which seeks to amend provisions in the 2018 act so that carers assistance regulations can provide for assistance to be tapered when carers’ earnings increase. We recognise the concerns that carers and support organisations raised about the impact that earnings rules can have on carers’ ability to take on paid work.

We have made improvements to earnings processes in carer support payment, working with carers and support organisations to provide clearer information for clients, and calculating carers’ average earnings to help to provide more stable support where earnings vary. We also took feedback through our public consultation on changes that we could make in the future once case transfer for carers allowance was complete.

An earnings taper, with carer support payment being gradually reduced as earnings increased—that is, as I understand it, the aim of amendment 4—would be one approach to changing the earnings rules. The idea was considered ahead of the consultation as part of a multicriteria appraisal process undertaken with stakeholders, and it found that a taper would add significant complexity to the benefit with regard to build, operational delivery, clients’ understanding of eligibility and how the benefit would interact with wider support, such as universal credit. The fact that carer support payment affects the amounts of universal credit that carers receive and that universal credit itself has an earnings taper would add significant complexity, in addition to the fact that the divergence from carers allowance could again put at risk the extra support—the carer element—that is currently available under universal credit for those who get carer support payment.

We explored other, potentially more effective, ways of improving the earnings rules in our consultation, such as a run-on of support when carers earn over the threshold and increasing the overall threshold. We are continuing to consider the responses to the consultation, as well as further considering the potential input on carers’ wider support and affordability and sustainability in the wider Scottish budget.

Finally, I highlight that, even if a decision were taken in the future to introduce an earnings taper for carers assistance, it is already possible to do so under existing enabling powers in the 2018 act. The proposed amendment is therefore unnecessary.

For all those reasons, I urge the committee to reject amendments 3 and 4, should Mr Balfour choose to press them.

Good morning. The Scottish Government’s amendments in this group would simplify our approach to providing income-based benefits for children and young people by broadening the scope of the childhood assistance provisions in section 1 and by repealing the associated existing provisions on early years assistance in the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018.

The primary reason for taking the new childhood assistance powers is to allow the Scottish child payment to be put on a new legislative footing. I believe that we should progress with providing for eligibility to be the same for all our five family payments while we have the opportunity that is provided by the bill.

The changes will give the Scottish ministers more flexibility in how they develop regulations to support children in low-income families in the future and will allow for longer-term improvements to the experience of clients who access the range of support that is currently offered by the five family payments.

I will turn to some specific aspects of the amendments. Amendments 19 and 17 will add additional primary eligibility criteria to the childhood assistance provisions, broadly mirroring the existing early years provisions in the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018, with some adjustments to the criteria in relation to the definition of pregnant women and persons with a relationship to them, and of persons who are to, or have,

“become responsible for a child”

and persons with a relationship to them.

Amendment 20 widens the scope for giving assistance in relation to a specific event in a child’s life. Amendment 18 allows for ministers to create regulations that support families that were receiving childhood assistance in cases when the child to whom the claim related passed away during the course of that claim.

Amendment 15 provides for the repeal of the existing early years provisions in the 2018 act, with amendment 18 making transitional provisions for best start grants.

Amendment 7, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, seeks to impose a duty on the Scottish ministers to define through regulations what being responsible for a child means for the purpose of receiving assistance. It would also require them to provide assistance in relation to a child to the individual who was responsible for them at any point. I absolutely share Mr Balfour’s concern about making sure that we pay the money to the right person, and I am grateful for his continued interest in that issue and for our recent discussion on the topic. However, his amendment is unnecessary. The regulations under the 2018 act for our current low-income benefits for children already set out a child responsibility test and contain a competing claims process that can be used when child responsibility is disputed.

Amendment 7 is based on the assumption that there can be only one parent responsible for a child at any given time, which is often not the case. That approach could unintentionally undermine amicable shared care arrangements. Social Security Scotland has existing processes in place to resolve disputes between parents and to act promptly on any change in circumstances, and it is able to make a change in whom payments are made to if required. I have set out more information on that to Mr Balfour in recent correspondence, and I trust that he has had the opportunity to consider that.

I should also note that amendment 7, as drafted, might affect young people aged 16 and above who wish to manage their own assistance and have the capacity to do so, as is currently possible with child disability payment. The Government therefore does not support amendment 7, and I ask Mr Balfour not to move it.

I urge members to support my amendments in this group, which allow us to set the groundwork for improvements to the five family payments in the future, but to reject amendment 7.

I move amendment 15.

The Scottish Government cannot support amendments 118 to 125, in the name of Jeremy Balfour. The amendments relate to process appeals at the First-tier Tribunal. That is where clients can challenge process decisions such as if Social Security Scotland rejects an application or a redetermination request as invalid if it was not submitted in the correct form or was incomplete.

The First-tier Tribunal can decide whether a process decision made by Social Security Scotland was right. In addition, it can decide that more information is needed to make an application or a redetermination request valid, and it can instruct Social Security Scotland to seek that information from the client.

Process appeals only look at process decisions. They do not cover the level of an award or overall entitlement, which are covered as part of redeterminations and appeals.

Amendments 118 to 125 would mean that, following a process appeal, Social Security Scotland would have to make a determination of entitlement in scenarios in which the tribunal has said that more information is needed, regardless of whether that additional information is provided by the client. That is unfair, as clients who have made a process appeal would be treated differently from clients who have also submitted an invalid application but who did not seek a process appeal. It could also disadvantage anyone who received a decision from the tribunal during a process appeal that Social Security Scotland was correct to reject their application or redetermination request.

In practical terms, if Scottish ministers do not have the required information, as set out in the 2018 act, they are not in a position to make a determination of entitlement. An example of that would be a client not submitting part 2 of an application for a disability benefit, because part 2 of the application contains information about a client’s needs and eligibility for that disability benefit.

The Government does not, therefore, support amendments 118 to 125, and I ask Mr Balfour not to press them.

The Scottish Government does not support amendments 116 and 117, which would allow people to appeal a decision of the First-tier Tribunal in the Upper Tribunal. We do not consider the amendments necessary. Most process appeals are based on the facts of the appeal—for example, whether a client has completed a benefit application correctly or submitted a redetermination request on time—while Upper Tribunal appeals can be brought only on a point of law. The number of process appeals received to date is very small, and my understanding is that, if required and where appropriate, the First-tier Tribunal may seek guidance from the Upper Tribunal in circumstances in which a First-tier Tribunal has to consider whether the appellant had a good reason for requesting a redetermination late.

As such, the Government does not support amendments 116 and 117. I ask Mr Balfour not to press amendment 116 and not to move amendment 117.