Chamber and committees

I appreciate your concerns.

Ms Young, you said that there are no fleshed-out criteria by which the ability to pay or what a reasonable rate would look like would be determined. One option could be to provide decent guidance on that, rather than to provide an income threshold. I suspect that Ms Young would still want an income threshold. However, I ask about guidance because income thresholds could change over time—

Are you saying that the general principle is correct but that there needs to be clarity on where the liability sits, given that the advice sector might offer advice and then act on the instructions of clients, regardless of whether they follow the advice that was offered, and that account needs to be taken of whether there has been a direct financial benefit to the individual or organisation concerned after an overpayment has been made?

In other words, the underlying principle is okay, but the provisions need to be set out more clearly. I do not want to put words in your mouth, but we are considering whether the bill needs to be beefed up or made clearer. Is that what you are saying?

Is there a general consensus among the witnesses that that is the case, or do others have views that are contrary to that or additional comments to make?

I can see nodding heads—in the room, anyway. Would anyone online like to come in?

It is helpful to have some real-life examples of how the provision will have to be applied in practice, so I appreciate that.

I will move on. I will turn back the clock slightly to talk about redeterminations and appeals. I suppose that this question is for Jon Shaw, because the issue was raised in CPAG’s written evidence. The bill will allow for a review of a decision on overpayment liability. The legislation refers to a review, but, Mr Shaw, I think that your organisation refers to a redetermination. Are those just different words for the same thing?

That is very helpful, because I now realise that there is a very clear difference between reviews and redeterminations, which I was not aware of. Thank you for that, Mr Shaw.

If there is a review, is it unclear whether that will still progress to an appeal if that review is not successful for the individual? Is that one of the more substantive issues in relation to why redeterminations and reviews are different? I just want the committee to be clear on that point. I am sorry if I have not understood correctly, Mr Shaw, but I want to tease out the importance of a redetermination as opposed to a review.

It is always helpful to get a real-life example, because it makes the situation real rather than our just dealing with dusty legislation, if you like. Was that repayment figure requested by Social Security Scotland?

Given that Mr Shaw has set out priorities for using the greater flexibility in the bill and the provision for a stand-alone benefit, I will direct my question to him.

The Scottish child payment is not about providing more money; it is about providing greater flexibilities, which might require more money. Will you say a little bit more about the cliff edge, not just in relation to universal credit but in relation to better-off calculations for people? They might lose their entitlement to universal credit because they increase their hours of work or get into full-time employment. Does that mean a hard landing for some families, and is there a disincentive for some people to go into work because there is no taper or roll-on in relation to Scottish child payment levels as folk get employment or go into full-time employment?

—and there is an issue of whether a threshold would be in the bill or whether the bill would provide the power for an income threshold to be set at a later date, on the basis that secondary legislation could amend the income threshold, as appropriate. However, I am conscious that any agreed income threshold might be a bit arbitrary. There are other things that might be happening in an individual’s life that must also be taken into account. Are you wedded to an income threshold? If so, should that be in the bill? Might more meaningful guidance also be a way round that situation?

That is helpful. Thank you.