Chamber and committees

I would have thought that, in such a situation, a basic duty of care from Social Security Scotland would kick in.

I will mop up one final aspect of this helpful line of questioning. Mr Gass talked about the bespoke one-page form that distils all the key information that you can assist clients in completing, which they then sign and off it goes. However, because of the specifics of legislation, a 16-page form has to be sent as part of a box-ticking exercise. I know that this is a rather mundane workaround, but could that form not simply be sent blank with an addendum attached to it? As long as that form had been sent in, it would still count. That is a workaround and not a solution.

Are there clear workarounds, in the very short term, that you could work with Social Security Scotland to secure?

Richard Gass indicated agreement.

There might be a few daft-laddie questions this morning, so I apologise, but I would prefer to understand properly.

Our briefing paper says that applicable benefits could be claimed back for up to five years. Does the certificate relate to benefits that have been received up to the date of the award or do you fast forward? If, as a direct result of an injury, a claimant will be on devolved or reserved benefits for ever or for a prolonged period, is that taken into account for clawback? How does that work?

That is even better, Mr Gass.

What are the witnesses’ views on having a review process for those benefits, as opposed to a redetermination or an appeals process? So far, is the process working fine, or would you like to see any changes? I suspect that, with little experience, there might not be a lot to say. For the record, Ms Young, what are your thoughts on that?

That is helpful.

I do not want to create a division between the witnesses—although it would be nice to get one, because you are all agreeing with each other.

Mr Ross, I think that you are saying that we would need awareness raising of the terminology and the phraseology around the different system in Scotland, rather than taking it for granted that all individuals who work in the sector would be fully aware of the situation. I am sure that they are aware, but we would need to get it right and be 100 per cent sure. Is that what you are saying?

So the big takeaway for us is the need for a single point of contact for the sector in delivering on this. You guys do not have to address the complexities—it is for the DWP and Social Security Scotland, between them, to deal with those. You do not have to see those complexities as long as the front-end user that Lynne Macfarlane was talking about can just continue as they always have done, with the appropriate training.

Sorry, Lynne—I apologise if I have misrepresented your position.

In asking my question, I should caveat it by saying that I absolutely agree that the idea of having a single point of contact and as little disruption as possible for claimants, defenders and the sector makes absolute sense. However, I am looking at the amount-recoverable estimates from Social Security Scotland compared with the set-up and on-going running costs. It could effectively be cost neutral at the end of the day, or it might not collect very much.

I suppose that there are commercial negotiations behind the scenes between the DWP and Social Security Scotland, so the more figures that are put in the public domain, the more the DWP can squeeze for a better deal for itself in relation to this. We could get to a point in the future where the figures show that it makes sense to set up a stand-alone Scottish system, which could still dovetail nicely with the UK system. The bill does not suggest that, and I am not suggesting that—I am asking a question about future proofing, given that it is pretty self-evident from the numbers, if I have looked at them accurately, that the benefit to the Scottish taxpayer of doing this at all is relatively minimal in the first instance. If we fast forward five or 10 years, and the numbers show that there is a business case to set up a stand-alone Scottish system, do you have any reflections on how that could be done, and whether there is a way of dovetailing nicely with the wider UK system?

That is very helpful and important to put on the record. The key thing is that, whatever happens in the future, we take the insurance industry and litigators with us in that process to ensure that there is no disruption to the most important thing, which, as Lynne Macfarlane keeps going on about, is the front-end business of ensuring that people get the compensation that they deserve.

So, it relates to benefits actually received and is a full and final settlement. There is no predication of future benefits being accrued.

It is a bit of repetition, but I want to clarify a couple of things. In relation to the debate about whether redeterminations or appeals should be used, some witnesses have said that appeals sounded off-putting for some clients and that they wished to keep redeterminations. Other witnesses shared the views of Erica Young and Richard Gass. Are we overcomplicating things a little?

I think that Ms Young said that it does not matter what we call the process, as long as we de-risk it for the individual. An appeal could include a redetermination clause, which is what Mr Gass said. That would mean that it would move from an appeal and there would be nothing to prevent Social Security Scotland from doing an internal review or redetermination, anyway, in quick order, to see whether there was a glaring inaccuracy in the initial claim. I think that Ms Young called it the appeal-lapsing proposal.

Could we pursue Mr Gass’s idea whereby redetermination and appeal is one process? We would then just need to get the wording or phraseology of that right to ensure that the process is not off-putting for clients. There must be a way to square the circle.