���˿���

That goes back to one of the principles that I discussed in my opening remarks, which is about ensuring that we run an effective system but always with the principles of dignity, fairness and respect underpinning it. We have a duty to steward those public funds responsibly, and a key part of that is about recovering assistance that has been paid out incorrectly, where it is reasonable to do so. That is the very important caveat, which I hope reassures Mr Balfour.

The decision about where to place liability hinges on two questions. Did the individual or their representative cause or contribute to the error, and was it the sort of error that a reasonable person would be expected to notice? If the answer to both those questions is no, neither the representative nor the individual will be considered liable. It is important that people are reassured that the system that we have in place is thorough and that it will look seriously at overpayments, but that it will not do so in a punitive manner when people have made genuine errors.

If the representative made an error in good faith but it was the sort of error that a person could reasonably have been expected to notice, that would mean that the benefit was paid out incorrectly. Therefore, it is important that the benefit is recovered, where possible. In our view, it is fairer to place the liability for the overpayment on whichever party benefited from it—there is an important distinction between the person the benefit is for and their representative. In those circumstances, as in all cases in which there have been errors, we would look at the issues case by case.

It is important that the process has a statutory underpinning and that the guidance that the agency uses for that process is worked on together with stakeholders, so that those who represent vulnerable clients are reassured that the agency has in place safeguarding measures that ensure that the system is not punitive and does not seek to recoup overpayments in a way that is detrimental to the individual if they are in difficult financial circumstances. The agency will work with stakeholders on the operational guidance, which will include the safeguarding measures. It is important to have a strong and robust system and that we are respectful and cognisant of an individual’s case or of the circumstances of the representative of the individual.

I do not think that that needs to be included in the bill. There is a requirement for flexibility, and needs will change. Looking way into the future, when we have all moved on to other things, we would perhaps be obligating the agency to collect information by statute that it does not necessarily want to collect. Say, for instance, we entirely changed a benefit but we still had something in legislation requiring the agency to collect information. That would be quite a blunt instrument.

What is behind your questioning is the fact that we need to ensure that we are gathering the right information, and I accept that that is correct. We are developing that process with the agency, which I know is keen to have systems in place to allow the collecting of more management information for its own benefit and, therefore, that of the client.

I do not think that that needs to be in the bill, partly because of that inflexibility but also because you are pushing at an open door, Mr Balfour—indeed, we all agree that more needs to be collected, and I am always happy to have suggestions from the committee about where that might be.

I often have discussions with the chief executive and the senior team on the level of management information that we have and what it is possible to publish to allow full transparency. I sometimes have frustrations that, at this point, we cannot publish as much as I would like in order to be able to demonstrate how well the system is going.

As with everything, and as I said in my opening remarks, I am keen for, and open to looking at, continuous improvement in social security. We set up this system from scratch; indeed, Jeremy Balfour was one of the people who, with the points that he made, assisted the Government at that time. We must always be open to looking at what needs to be done on certain issues.

We need to look at the system benefit by benefit to see what needs to be done. For example, there is already a level of backdating with some benefits, and there are other benefits for which eligibility is due because they are top-up benefits. I am very happy to take the issue away and consider whether further work can be done on that, but I would caution against any blanket approach that assumes that what works for one benefit will necessarily work for another, given the very different circumstances involved and the different types of benefits. I have asked officials to work with stakeholders to see whether anything can be done and taken forward on that.

Thank you very much and good morning, convener.

I begin by thanking everyone who has contributed to the development of the bill that we are here to talk about today. I am grateful for the productive contributions to the Parliament’s scrutiny that have been provided by the evidence given so far by our engaged stakeholders on what can be technical and complex issues. It has added to the engagement that we have had through consultation, co-facilitated events and work with people on our experience and client panels.

We have listened to the points that have been raised by stakeholders and by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, and I am pleased to say that we intend to build on those points with a number of stage 2 amendments to improve the bill, including the introduction of new flexibilities for late applications in exceptional circumstances, further extension of the range of regulations scrutinised by the Scottish Commission on Social Security and a requirement for Scottish ministers to consult on categories that will be exempt from information requests as part of audits.

The bill will enhance the Scottish system of social security in line with our social security principles, which are set out in the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 and were supported by the entire Scottish Parliament. Those that are particularly relevant to the bill are that

“opportunities are to be sought to continuously improve the Scottish social security system in ways which ... put the needs of those who require assistance first”,

and that

“the Scottish social security system is to be efficient and deliver value for money”.

The bill represents an essential collective investment in a system from which we might all need help from time to time. It is expected to generate savings of around £2.8 million in its first year of implementation, followed by £3.5 million in recurring annual savings. The projected implementation costs are estimated to be between £10.1 million and £27.8 million, and that large range is a reflection of prudent overestimates, calculated in line with best practice for estimating project costs.

The bill is drafted in eight substantive parts related to the two principles that I mentioned, with parts 1, 2, 5 and 8 seeking to improve client experience, parts 6 and 7 focusing on delivering value for money and parts 3 and 4 speaking to both principles. Some parts of the bill seek to amend or repeal sections of the 2018 act, while others seek to create new provisions in it.

The bill aims, in particular, to introduce new rights for people; to save money by increasing efficiency and reducing unnecessary processes; to improve the scrutiny of social security; to take powers to improve existing benefits; and to introduce a power to create a new benefit for people with care experience. I am happy to work with committee members and, of course, our stakeholders to take forward the bill’s important set of improvements.

I am happy to answer the committee’s questions.

That follows on from the points that I made to Jeremy Balfour. There are very different types of benefits. When we move from a single-payment benefit, such as the young carer grant, or move forward with aspects of the Scottish child payment or disability payments, we see that they are all very different, and the same dates will not necessarily work for everything. However, as I have said, I am more than happy to see whether there is anything that can be done to assist, if there is any confusion.

It is clear that we developed social security in an iterative fashion—and quite rightly so. We dealt with things benefit by benefit. It is helpful at this point to have an opportunity to take a little bit of a step back and hear from clients with experience of going through the system and from representatives, such as citizens advice and welfare rights officers, about whether they are finding areas that are overly complex.

There might be very good reasons why the different dates are in place for clients to apply or for Social Security Scotland to undertake work. I give as an example the fact that the length of time that it will take the agency to carry out a redetermination for a single-payment benefit is very different from the time that it will take for, say, adult disability payments, for which a great deal of evidence and supporting information might have to be worked through. It is very important that there is no one-size-fits-all policy. There should be an openness from the Government and the agency to hear from clients with experience and people who have assisted them to see whether anything can be done to make the system easier.

As we have said from the start, one of the key things that we want to do with social security is to make it as simple as possible for people to apply for it and ensure that there are no barriers. That is very important. What we do about dates might be one small aspect of that, but it is an important aspect that we are happy to look at.

It is important that we share information with the DWP when that is in the best interests of the client and when due process is followed. There are back-office systems to facilitate the sharing of information both for the case transfers that you mentioned and for new applications.

The powers in the bill will allow the speedy payment of a benefit if an appointee is already in place with the DWP, but it is important that the agency then goes through its own process, because the system that we have established in Scotland includes more checks than the DWP system. If we simply accepted a DWP appointee and did not have our own processes in place, that would, in effect, go against something that we deliberated long and hard about in 2018, which was the level of assurance that we would need to have about appointees, and we would have a less rigorous system.

In essence, it would be easier not to have two processes. However—noting that we, quite rightly, would not expect the DWP to change its system to match ours because it is perfectly entitled to make its own decisions—that would require our agency to reduce the number of checks that we have in place at the moment, when the level of checks for appointees has previously been discussed and agreed.

On that basis, and because I hope we still agree that we have the correct level of checks in Scotland, we must ensure that we have the powers in the bill to recognise the DWP appointee and then move speedily to the checks that the agency would need to carry out, so that we can move forward on the basis of the Scottish system.

I hope that that explanation of why we have two different levels of checks in the two departments makes sense.

We have taken that issue really seriously, as I have looked at the evidence. I will continue to repeat the point that we have to do everything on the basis of dignity, fairness and respect. That includes how we do our audit.

Audit is exceptionally important because of our requirement to ensure—quite rightly—that we are using public funds correctly. For example, I point to Audit Scotland’s evidence, which rightly establishes that the agency has in place the correct audit functions.

We have looked very carefully at the options around audit. We have not gone for a complete replica of what the DWP does, for example, although we did look at that, because there are lessons to learn from systems that are currently in place.

I suppose that I would say, in answer to one of the overarching concerns that people have about the requirement, that we are talking about audit, not about tackling fraud. In an audit, one might see information about a case that could lead to a concern that there might be fraud. I suggest that, if the audit system was entirely voluntary, someone who was committing fraud would not volunteer to be audited under that system. On that basis, there would be a self-selected sample of people, which would not give the agency the ability to carry out a full audit process.

We looked at different ways in which that could be done. We undertook a desk-based review of a random sample of cases with voluntary interviews. I hope that I have shown Mr Mason the slight difficulty with that. We also did a desk-based review of a random sample of cases and followed that up with mandatory interviews.

I want to reassure members about what happens in the audit process, which is where the important safeguarding measures come into play. We do not just take away a person’s benefit if they do not engage; we ensure that we work with the client so that they understand the importance of the audit process, which is done in a supportive fashion.

I hope that that gives you a high-level explanation of why we have come to the decisions that we have made and why I went through the process that I had to go through with the detailed suggestions that we have made. If there are particular points that you want to pick up on, I am happy to do so, or I will bring in my colleagues.

We can certainly check that, Mr Doris, in case the assumption that I am working on is incorrect.

Convener, with your indulgence, I will just say that the regulations that we were talking about will be subject to affirmative procedure.

First, it is an important principle that we should have that in our system. As I suggested in my opening remarks, recovery of compensation is a very specialised function, so, as we have drawn the financial memorandum together, we have looked at what happens in Northern Ireland and other systems and have attempted to compare that, as best we can, with what a Scottish system would look like. That has led to a wide range of estimated implementation and running costs. It is important that, as we are required to do, we consider the overestimations that are built into delivery and that we produce the financial memorandum on that basis.

The detailed analysis of the requirements that will be necessary to carry out the function that includes working with the DWP will allow us to have a much more accurate account of the costs once that work has been undertaken with the DWP. We would be happy to provide the committee with further information on that should the bill become an act and we move forward with the compensation scheme. However, I point out that it is also important to bear in mind that the delivery of that function is an important function of a social security system.