���˿���

Mr Balfour is quite right to say that third party representation is exceptionally important for people and I understand his position. There is no disagreement between us on the policy intent. I thank him for bringing the issue to the committee and to my attention. I recognise that it is still a concern, and I am more than happy to continue discussions with him and with stakeholders directly in order to see whether there is more that can be done to reassure them between stages 2 and 3 of the bill, because we do not want to do anything that puts people off, as volunteers are an exceptionally important part of the process. I am not entirely sure that an amendment is required at this stage, so Mr Balfour will forgive me if I do not put that reassurance to him today.

My understanding is that any claim on the estate would be part of the usual executory practice. The deadlines and timeframes for that are set out in regulations that are outwith social security, but there would be no delay because of social security. There would also be a right to review. I hope that I have been able to provide some reassurance on those points. As I said in my opening remarks, many of the amendments are technical in nature. Mr Balfour has raised a particular point on third-party representation, which I am happy to further consider with him and others, should they so wish.

Amendment 25 agreed to.

Amendment 26 moved—[Shirley-Anne Somerville]—and agreed to.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

Section 2—Care experience assistance

I see where the member is coming from. However, the way to test out what the DWP will do is not by putting provisions in primary legislation, which is exceptionally difficult to unpick. We do not want to find out what the DWP will do if what it does will adversely affect clients, because undoing primary legislation is exceptionally challenging. Although I understand the member’s point, I strongly urge him not to use primary legislation to attempt to force the DWP’s hand or to find out what it thinks.

The Scottish Government does not support amendment 8, which seeks to make local authorities disregard military compensation as income when deciding whether to provide a discretionary housing payment. That is not because we think that military compensation should be counted as income in those circumstances, but because there are potential issues with Mr Balfour’s amendment and, in any case, we do not consider the bill to be an appropriate place for the policy.

Although the Government is keen to encourage consistency across different parts of the country, it is important to retain a level of discretion that allows for applications to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Discretion is baked into that design. That said, my officials will soon be undertaking a review. Given that, in the debates on other groups of amendments, Mr Balfour has expressed concerns about timeframes, I reassure him that that review is due next month, so there is not too long to wait. Officials will undertake a review of the statutory discretionary housing payment guidance, which we consider to be a more appropriate place for the policy than primary legislation.

We have concerns that the amendment would leave out recipients of other forms of compensation, which we may, when we undertake the review, also wish to include in addition to military compensation. We are more than happy to work broadly with all stakeholders, including, of course, Poppyscotland and Mr Balfour directly, to ensure that the intent behind the amendment is integral to the work that is undertaken as part of that review.

I recommend that the committee does not support the amendment if Mr Balfour presses it, not because it is wrong in principle but because the policy does not belong in primary legislation and because we want to ensure that any approach does not leave out other people who may be awarded other types of compensation.

I will do so very briefly. Again, I thank Jeremy Balfour for our discussions on those issues, because an important point has been raised. As he pointed out, his conversations with stakeholders have suggested that the third sector does not understand that area. It is the responsibility of the agency, not the third sector, to make sure that we do something about that. I confirm to Mr Balfour that I will speak to the agency and ask it to carry out further work with the third sector and engage with wider stakeholders to ensure that the guidance is understood.

Mr Balfour asked for further reassurances about changes in guidance. Again, that is an important point, not just on this issue but on others. If the agency makes significant changes to guidance, there should be a process to alert stakeholders and the committee to that. I will take his point away and reflect with the agency’s senior team on how best to do that. I give my assurances that we will work to provide reassurance on the future proofing of that process.

Amendment 15 agreed to.

Amendments 16 to 23 moved—[Shirley-Anne Somerville]—and agreed to.

The Scottish Government supports Jeremy Balfour’s amendments 109 to 111. We consider that the definition of “error” in proposed new section 49A is very broad and that the bill as drafted will allow a new determination to be made and an appeal stopped in a wide range of scenarios, including where a decision maker reaches a different conclusion on the same facts. However, I am content that amendments 109 to 111 as drafted meet the policy intention that a decision maker should be able to make a more favourable determination for the client during an appeal. On that basis, the Scottish Government is happy to support those amendments. We may lodge amendments at stage 3 to make small technical changes to the provisions, but I assure Mr Balfour that such amendments would not alter the policy.

The Scottish Government does not support amendment 112, which seeks to remove the definition of “error” in the bill as far as it relates to allowing Social Security Scotland to make a new determination and an appeal to stop as a result. Although we are supportive of that, and support Mr Balfour’s other amendments that seek to remove the need for error in the process, amendment 112 also seeks to remove the need for any new determination to be advantageous for the client.

We believe that an important aspect of the process is that a client be offered an advantageous award only in order to stop an appeal. That has been the intention behind the proposal since it was first introduced through the bill, and it remains an important aspect of the offer that would be made to a client. Removing it might result in Social Security Scotland contacting a client to offer them a lower award than that which they were challenging in the first place.

Therefore, the Government does not support amendment 112, and I ask Jeremy Balfour not to move it. However, if amendments 109 to 111 are agreed to, we will, at stage 3, remove the unnecessary definition of error that amendment 112 identifies.

The Scottish Government also cannot support amendments 106 to 108 or 113 to 115, in the name of Jeremy Balfour. The amendments seek to remove the requirement for a client to request a redetermination of the determination that stopped the appeal.

Our focus is on getting the decisions right first time. However, if a client disagrees with the determination that stopped the appeal, a right of redetermination provides the opportunity to correct any mistakes at an early stage through an independent rerun. Giving people redetermination and appeal rights in that scenario gives people the same range of challenge rights that are given to people who challenge all other determinations that are made under the 2018 act.

Some clients might find a tribunal process intimidating and stressful, and might prefer the opportunity to have Social Security Scotland look at their case again rather than having to appeal to the tribunal. In addition, not everyone who has lodged an appeal will have had a previous redetermination outcome. Some people might have appealed because their redetermination was not concluded by Social Security Scotland within the timescale that is set out in the regulations.

It should be noted that, even if the Government agreed in principle with the amendments, they would not, as currently drafted, achieve the intended purpose. Some references to redeterminations have not been removed and, therefore, the legislation would not work properly.

For those reasons, I urge the committee to support Mr Balfour’s amendments 109 to 111 but not to support amendments 106 to 108 or 112 to 115. I ask Jeremy Balfour not to move the latter amendments.

I agree with Mr Balfour’s point that we have broad agreement about the policy intent. It is important to ensure that what was designed in 2018 is fit for purpose and that we review what we have learned during this period.

I thank CPAG for its work on amendment 105 and Paul O’Kane for lodging it, because it demonstrates that there are different ways of achieving the same policy intent. However, for the reasons that I have given, I think that the Government’s approach is better. Mr O’Kane pointed to the wide range of circumstances that we are trying to encapsulate; it is important that we do that through the regulations to ensure that they are fit for purpose for each type of benefit and payment. For those reasons, I request that Mr O’Kane does not move his amendment.

Amendment 24 agreed to.

I will bring in David Wallace to talk about some of the specifics, but it is important to bear in mind that the charter is the foundation, or cornerstone, of not just what happens in Social Security Scotland but of how we approach social security in the Scottish Government. It is embedded in everything that we do. We do not start off every meeting by quoting parts of the charter, but, in essence, it is built into everything that we do. That is why the staff training is delivered in the way that it is and it is the reason why the system is set up as it is. It reflects the policy decisions that are made in Government. In essence, it is embedded in everything.

David Wallace can point to some of the specifics, because it is important that people know that there is a charter and take cognisance of it.

The fact that that issue has not been raised with us suggests that—this more important than what I think about it—others are relaxed about its status. I would again take from the fact that no feedback has come from stakeholders that they wish to see a change that they are satisfied with that. Obviously, if there is a view on that that has not come through as part of the review process, I would be happy to hear from stakeholders on the issue, but I am not aware that anyone is calling for that.

That is one of the areas that I am very pleased that the committee has given me and David Wallace an opportunity to talk about, because the change was very much driven by what came back from clients. Everybody here might have a different definition of “quickly”. We quite rightly got feedback that there is no point in having a word in there that could be interpreted in lots of different ways to mean many things. The word “quickly” might mean something different to me, David Wallace, you and someone who is going through the process. It then becomes rather meaningless.

Clients have asked to be updated on what is happening with their claim and to get that information through so that they have something that is much more specific to the type of benefit that they are on and the expectation of where that is in the system. That is much more useful and more meaningful to clients than the phrase

“as quickly as we can”.

The challenge that came back from the work was to ensure that what is in the charter means something to clients who are going through the process. That did not by any means come from the Government as a wish to water down the issue; it came from the clients. Terminology in the original charter could be interpreted in too many different ways.

We have ended up with a more stringent measure for the Government and the agency than what we had before. I am sure that we will continue to have discussions about processing times. The committee has heard from me and David Wallace directly that we know that processing times were too long. They are coming down. We are very satisfied that that work is continuing, and more is being put in place to ensure that we are on that journey. However, that is separate from the fact that there has been a change in the terminology in the document.

I hope that that demonstrates that the charter is separate and has been through a process that is not impacted by what is happening on processing times in the agency.

There is information in “Measuring our Charter”, and there is the information that is published separately through official statistics. Mr O’Kane said that things could be read in that way. You have heard from me, and David Wallace can speak on behalf of the agency on this. I assure you that, if there was a stakeholder organisation out there that felt that we were somehow gerrymandering the charter to make things easier for the agency, you would have heard from it by now.

The fact that organisations are comfortable with the changes that are being made is a reflection that those who are either impacted directly by the system or work with those who are feel comfortable with the changes that are being made. I sincerely hope that no one makes any mischief by misinterpreting that, because we are satisfied that the stakeholders are satisfied with what we have done. I hope that that is of reassurance.

To go back to your question, it is important to say that it is not just about what is being measured in the charter but about what is in the official statistics on processing times and so on. There are two ways to ensure that we are held to account for processing times; it is not just through the charter measurements directly.