Chamber and committees

Good morning, everyone. Thank you for coming along today. I am the member of the Scottish Parliament for Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn.

I was just googling “climate hubs” there to see what would come up, so the panel members have already got me trying to learn a bit more.

The report makes five recommendations in relation to making it easier for everyone to contribute to tackling climate issues. I liked the expression that there is an “action gap”—not a willingness gap, but an action gap. Does any of you want to say a little bit more about that?

I am taken with the climate hub idea, and it is being made easier for people to engage and to act. Can you give concrete examples of things that the Government or local authorities can consider doing that would make it easier for people not just to be aware of climate change and its challenges but to identify and fill the action gap that is referred to in the report?

Again, that is really helpful. I am conscious that the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill has revenue aspects to it. Money could be ploughed back into community initiatives. You are allowing us to join the dots about how revenues can be used as effectively as possible.

Do I have time to ask a further question?

I do not want to squeeze out other members who wish to come in.

I was struck by the keep-it-positive mantra that comes up all the time. I suppose that there is a lesson there for politicians. I am a back-bench MSP of the party of Government, and I want to make things look as positive as possible, even when they are just okay. When things are just okay, Opposition politicians want them to look as bad as possible. We are all part of that—of not being positive.

In relation to keeping it positive, there was mention of how people could get involved in climate hubs. Do climate hubs have to be bricks and mortar or specific to one building? I am thinking about local sports centres, supermarkets and football stadiums. Could a climate hub co-ordinator encourage organisations, ensure that the positive stories are shared with the community and set out the pathways for involvement? Did you look at that? Am I fleshing out what the recommendations mean or do not mean in practice?

That is very helpful.

Mr Ross, your organisation has talked about training and other potential requirements ahead of time, in relation to lead-in time. I can read the quotation:

“Insurers would need at least 12 months’ notice of this change and details of the new system in order to support its smooth introduction, and provide training for claims handlers to understand the new system and the social security applicable.”

From Mr Rogerson’s perspective, it is a case of press the button and on we go because there is a single point of contact and things at the point of use—as Lynne Macfarlane was talking about—carry on as before. The numbers simply change with a disaggregated breakdown. However, are other things lurking, Mr Ross, that need a wee bit of attention?

Did I characterise your suggestion correctly, Mr Gass?

That is helpful. Right at the start of this line of questioning, Ms Young mentioned a specific case study where CAS had been supporting somebody. You called the person John for the purposes of anonymity, Ms Young. In that case, there was an appeal to the Upper Tribunal by Social Security Scotland that was unexpected, and it was made despite the fact that John’s condition had deteriorated. He sought a redetermination on the basis of that deterioration in his condition. We have to capture that properly.

Do correct my terminology, Ms Young—my apologies. There is a wider point that I wish to make.

That explanation is helpful. It seems common sense that there should be a duty on Social Security Scotland in such circumstances to tell people such as John not to withdraw from the process, because it still has the right to appeal to the Upper Tribunal, and that what John sought in the first place would be locked in until any potential Upper Tribunal appeal has been disposed of. That must be a pretty straightforward thing to make happen.

More widely, Ms Young, you have given one case study or example, but I am sure that there are lots of others where, if common sense were to prevail, we could just fix things. Is there a general need for a review of the guidance, advice and information that Social Security Scotland gives out in such circumstances?