Chamber and committees

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.

I followed that line of evidence with great interest. Mr Balfour might remember that we had discussions about ensuring that people had a redetermination, because they found tribunals to be intimidating, and about the process being time consuming and more expensive for the public purse. As I have said, if, on reflection at stage 2, we think that anything can be done, I am happy to look at that. However, as we have laid out, I think that there is enough opportunity for people to have redeterminations in a simple and timely manner and to allow that to be an important part of the process. We discussed the issue in great detail when the Social Security (Scotland) Bill was going through Parliament, and that is the reason why the process has been set out in the way that it has. I recognise that people have made certain points on the issue

I do not know whether my officials have any more details on the work in that respect.

I am happy to consider that further.

We recognise from the evidence that stakeholders have concerns about that. Again, I want to provide them with the reassurance that we absolutely do not intend—in the bill or anywhere else—for professional advisers who act on clients’ instructions, such as welfare rights officers or those who work in citizens advice bureaus, to be made liable for overpayments.

It is very important that we reassure stakeholders, which I am happy to do today, as well as see whether there is anything else that needs to be done to tighten up the provisions in the bill. At the moment, I am content with how we intend to go about that. A full list of the people who fall within the definition of a “representative” will be set out in the regulations. It is absolutely not the intention to pull those who give advice, such as welfare rights officers, into that definition. I am happy to work with stakeholders to make sure that the reassurance is in the regulations.

I will bring in my colleague to answer that.

Part 6 did not form part of the full consultation, but we have tried to consult stakeholders who will be most impacted by what is proposed or who have the most obvious relation with clients who will be impacted. There has been targeted consultation, but it did not form part of the full public consultation on the bill.

I think that I said this in my opening statement but, if I did not, I record my thanks to the DPLR Committee for its diligence, as always, on the bill, and in particular on the issue that Bob Doris has raised.

I hope that I can alleviate the concerns that have been raised. It is vital that, when offences are created in legislation, the terms of each offence are clear and properly understood by those who might find themselves accused of committing the offences. To that end, it is our intention to carry out in-depth engagement with all relevant stakeholders, including from the insurance industry, before we clearly lay out the details of such offences in regulations.

One of the reasons for the approach that we have taken is that we want to ensure that there is further on-going consultation with those who will be directly impacted by the offences in the bill. We intend to ensure that the details of the offences that will be created align with the investigatory provisions, which will also be in secondary legislation and will apply appropriately to corporate bodies. We must ensure that the various regulations link up, are compatible with one another and are coherent. Of course, the Parliament will have the opportunity to reject the regulations if it does not appreciate what comes forward.

The approach that we are taking is not unprecedented. A similar power was taken to make provision about offences that are already contained in the 2018 act, so the approach follows on from that which was taken in that legislation in relation to offences.

You can claim it as a win either way. [Laughter.]

It is our intention to create a recovery scheme that is consistent with the approach that has been undertaken in the rest of the UK, which is of long standing and has been agreed with stakeholders. Well, not entirely, actually; I will caveat that. I am not sure that what the DWP went through was agreed by stakeholders, but it is certainly understood by stakeholders. I therefore do not see a reason for change from that and am happy to reassure stakeholders that there will be consistency.

We want consistency because we want to reduce complexity and uncertainty. That is an important aspect. Sometimes, change and difference are necessary and sometimes they are not; I do not see such a necessity in this case.

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, I am more than happy to lodge amendments at stage 2 to extend the role of SCOSS in relation to some of the regulations that we have talked about today. I absolutely recognise and am greatly appreciative of the role that SCOSS has played from day 1 in considering regulations, so I am keen to ensure that its role is expanded, changed and developed as the system for social security moves on.

The committee will be aware that there was recently an independent review of the SCOSS governance arrangements, which identified some changes to ensure that SCOSS is resilient and fit for purpose. The bill looks at implementing the recommendations of that, but I am happy to consider lodging stage 2 amendments to bring more powers into the bill in relation to the scope of formal SCOSS scrutiny, following the stakeholder contributions at stage 1 and a recent letter that I received from the SCOSS board. I am working with officials on all the details of what has come through from SCOSS—as I say, it came through very recently. I will go through that in detail with my officials.

We intend to move forward at stage 2, and I will bring forward aspects around the care experience assistance and other areas that I mentioned earlier.