Chamber and committees

You have correctly said that it is quite a complex area. I think that we are struggling, in some ways, to get to grips with it. I suspect that many people would probably struggle to say how the children’s commissioner and His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons for Scotland differ from each other.

I was interested in your point that although they are all independent to the public, how the public see the role might depend on whether the role is called “commissioner” or something else. I think that most people would think that His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons for Scotland is quite independent; from the public’s point of view, I am not sure that there is a difference between their being answerable to the Government and their being answerable to Parliament. I get that, theoretically, they are less independent.

Thanks very much, and thank you, convener.

Obviously, it is difficult to change legislation, so we are not proposing that. Do you feel that you could make the system simpler if it was not for such and such legislation, or does it work okay?

I take the point, Ms Devlin, that you are trying to make the system friendly, helpful and simple, but we have had evidence that some clients find the process to be quite complex and stressful. My understanding is that the legislation has certain requirements, such as that redetermination requests are to be made in a form that the Scottish ministers require. Can you give us an idea of how much flexibility you have in relation to how the system works? How much are you bound by what is in the legislation?

Some people will keep copies of their original application forms and so on, but many will not. We have heard of an example in which somebody who wanted to make a redetermination request asked for a copy of their completed application form but had difficulty getting it. Would that be just a one-off? Would people normally be able to get the original application form?

It is good to get that on the record.

I realise that I have put all my questions to Ms Devlin. Do the other witnesses want to come in on whether what is in the legislation is too specific or there is a bit of flexibility?

Okay.

I accept that it is difficult. We are trying to strike a balance and not go to the extreme either of being too harsh or of being too easy going.

I wonder about the purpose of the audit. Audit was part of my training. If I was auditing Marks and Spencer, I would go in there and look at its systems, and if I found that it had been selling shirts for the wrong price, I would tick it off and that would go in the audit report. However, I would not go to the customer and ask them to give me the extra £10 that they did not pay for that shirt. If the purpose is to audit how Social Security Scotland is doing, that is fine—let us do that. However, it seems just to move on.

I would like some reassurance that what I describe is not going to happen. It seems to be a bit harsh that someone who has been through a bad experience in the first place would have their benefits cut simply because they had not engaged. As we have heard, some people will have been through a process of appealing to get the benefits that they are due. If it is simply the case that they have not responded and have done nothing wrong—or rather, that we do not know that they have done anything wrong—it would seem to be a bit harsh for them to have their benefits cut.

That was a very full and helpful answer.

Am I right in thinking that part 6 of the bill was not consulted on when the bill was being prepared?

I echo what Bob Doris has said. I was somewhat taken aback by how many people had applied to be the chair and commissioners; there seems to have been a very high level of applicants. I am also convinced that the process of sifting applicants down first to a short leet and then to the final nominees—who, as Bob Doris has said, seem to cover a wide range of ground—has been thorough. Therefore, I am happy to go ahead with the appointments.