Chamber and committees

That would be helpful. It is not often that the Lord President, the Law Society and the Faculty of Advocates seem almost to be taken by surprise by what is in a bill. Two out of those three came to the committee to give evidence on it. It would be helpful if you would come back to us on that one.

Good morning, minister. I think that you were just about to say that there is a template that people follow. Before a minister signs off the document, does someone in your team, whether that is Steven MacGregor or Rachel Rayner, cast an eye over it to make sure that it follows the template, or is it left to each ministerial department?

Recently, the Scottish Government has made commitments to amend at stage 2 delegated powers in a number of bills that have been going through Parliament, including the Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Bill, which the committee has scrutinised and reported on at stage 1, since your most recent appearance at committee.

Given the potential significance of the amendment of delegated powers at stage 2, will the minister commit to allowing more than the minimum time that is permitted by standing orders between the submission of a supplementary delegated powers memorandum after stage 2 and the scheduling of stage 3, to allow the committee sufficient time to consider it and report to Parliament on any new or amended delegated powers?

We are also looking at what happens between the stage 1 debate and stage 2. During the debate on the Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Bill, for example, the minister committed to lodging a number of amendments, some of which related to delegated powers. As a committee, we do not normally take evidence after stage 1, but on that occasion, both I and the convener made the point that we might need to do so in order to see how the professional bodies felt about those amendments. That takes time, but we had just a week in which to write to the Law Society of Scotland and the Lord President and to weigh their evidence and report on it appropriately.

What discussions do you have with your colleagues, as minister, particularly when fairly major amendments are proposed to legislation?

So is it your position that we are not seeing more framework bills coming through? My impression—I am happy to be corrected on this—is that in the current session of Parliament, over the past three years, we have seen a lot more framework bills than we saw in previous sessions.

On representation, my understanding is that, if one of your clients ticks the box to confirm that they want representation, that lasts only for three months before consent is re-sought. Is that right? Does that mean that you cannot represent your clients fully? Should they have representation all the way through to whenever the social security chamber of the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland makes a decision? Would that be easier for you, as agencies, in carrying out your work, or am I misunderstanding the arrangement? Does Kirstie Henderson or anybody else want to respond to that?

You have drawn a distinction between something that was done innocently and financial abuse. Do you think that the provisions in the bill will tackle instances of financial abuse?

I will go back briefly to Craig Smith. Maybe you have answered this question already, but how do you think that would work in practice? Can it work in practice? Do we need more guidance on how it would work in practice?

Thank you. I will move on. One of the principles in the policy memorandum says that

“the person who benefited from the overpaid sums will, ultimately, be liable to repay them.”

Does that justify making individuals liable for overpayments caused by their representatives? I am happy for anyone to jump in on that one.

Good morning, minister and colleagues. Amendment 19 is specifically on people with disability but, before I go on to that, I will add one comment to my colleague’s remarks on amendment 37. In Edinburgh, we have Ronald MacDonald House, which is attached to the sick kids hospital and allows parents to stay for a number of months. Without an exemption as proposed by Miles Briggs, either the charity would have to pick up the charge or parents who are going through a stressful period would have to do so. I am interested in whether that is the Scottish Government’s intention or whether it wants to prevent charities or vulnerable parents from having to pay the levy.

On amendment 19, we know from all the information that we get in the Parliament that people with disability are often in the poorest categories of our society. They have extra costs when travelling because of what they have to bring and because they often have to bring a carer with them for a trip, whether it is a short or long trip—it is often short—and wherever they go in the UK. Any extra cost for a disabled person will put them off having a break that they and perhaps their family require.

I am seeking to ensure that anyone who is on a benefit from the Department for Work and Pensions or, in Scotland, through Social Security Scotland, is exempt from the levy. I understand from reading the stage 1 report and from conversations with others that there is concern in the industry about how to implement that—Daniel Johnson has picked up that point already. However, such a scheme works in many places already. For example, if you go to the Festival theatre or the Playhouse in Edinburgh, when you turn up to book your ticket, you show your letter from either Social Security Scotland or the Department for Work and Pensions, which shows that you receive an award, and then you get an exemption. The system works in many other sectors. If you go to Alton Towers, Euro Disney or similar venues, they all have that in place, and it is easily managed.

Quite a lot of reporting has been done on the issue. Very little fraud takes place around the scheme, and it is easy for the people who have to implement it. Each year, the DWP or Social Security Scotland issues a letter to confirm that someone is on an award for disability benefit. People could then show that to the accommodation provider.

I appreciate that the minister might want to consider the matter further, so I would welcome him saying whether he is willing to meet me to discuss the issue before stage 3. If he is willing to do that, and unless he is minded to accept amendment 19 today, I will not move it, to allow for further discussion.