Chamber and committees

That is absolutely fair.

The VoiceAbility submission states:

“It is possible to participate by video conference or by telephone; by paper; or rarely, in person”.

I am concerned that that wording suggests that the presumption is that in-person hearings, as you would call them, are rare, which would push the client down the route of thinking that in-person hearings will prove to be more difficult to get. Are you concerned by that wording? Could it be more explicit that the client can participate in the way that they want to, which is what the legislation says?

Has VoiceAbility been told that?

I welcome that response. Thank you.

Good morning. I should probably put on record the fact that I am a former First-tier Tribunal member.

Ms Devlin, you said that you do not record information with regard to redeterminations. Why not?

It seems a bit confusing that we started with a whole new system and we are not recording information from day 1. Have you got a timescale for when that information will be recorded?

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. I will reflect on those comments.

We took some evidence in regard to First-tier Tribunal for Scotland hearings which, as you will remember, we looked at quite carefully. The question of whether tribunals would be held face to face or done on paper was very much meant to be client led. Interestingly, a freedom of information request came back just a couple of days ago that said that there had been only one in-person tribunal in the whole of Scotland in the past year. We have heard evidence that people are finding it difficult to get a face-to-face tribunal. It is in the 2018 act that that should be the person’s choice, but if it is not happening in practice, do we need to strengthen the legislation to ensure that people are getting what they want? I do not mean that they should be forced to go in person but that, if they want to go, that is an absolute right. Can we strengthen that in the legislation?

The committee has heard objections to individuals being liable for the good-faith errors of their representative. Can the cabinet secretary explain why someone should be liable for an error that was neither their fault nor something that a person might be expected to notice?

Several witnesses are concerned that, in many situations, such as shared household finances, it would be difficult in practice to identify whether funds had been misused. How will such decisions be made?

Good morning, cabinet secretary, and good morning to your team. It is always good to have you here.

The committee has heard that, for benefits that must be claimed within a certain timeframe, it would be beneficial for claimants to be able to make late applications in exceptional circumstances. The committee has also taken evidence on calls to extend provisions for backdating. What are your views on those two areas?