Social Justice and Social Security Committee – 19 September 2024

Good morning, everyone, and welcome to  the 24th meeting in 2024 of the Social   Justice and Social Security Committee. We have  received apologies from Collette Stevenson,   and I welcome David Torrance,  who is attending as a substitute. Under agenda item 1, I invite David  Torrance to declare any relevant interests. I have no relevant interests to declare. I understand that Jeremy Balfour also  wishes to make a comment at this point. Just for the avoidance of doubt, I remind  members that I am in receipt of a higher   rate of personal independence payment. I am  also a former member of the tribunals service. Thank you for putting that on the record. Agenda item 2 is stage 2 consideration of the  Social Security Bill. The Cabinet Secretary   for Social Justice, Shirley-Anne Somerville,   joins us. Thank you for coming along, cabinet  secretary.

You are joined by your officials,   and I thank them for coming along, too,  but only you can speak at this time. Everyone should have with them a copy of the bill  as introduced, the marshalled list of amendments,   which was published on 6 September, and the  groupings of amendments document, which sets   out the amendments in the groups in order  in which they will be debated. There will   be one debate on each group of amendments.  I will call the member who lodged the first   amendment in the group to speak to  and move that amendment and to speak   to all other amendments in the group.  Members who have not lodged amendments   in the group but who wish to speak should  indicate that by catching my attention.

The debate on the group will be concluded  by my inviting the member who moved the   first amendment in the group to wind  up. Standing orders give any Scottish   minister the right to speak on any amendment.  I will therefore invite the cabinet secretary   to contribute to the debate just  before I call the member to wind up. Following the debate on each group, I will check  whether the member who moved the first amendment   in the group wishes to press it or to seek  to withdraw it. If they wish to press ahead,   I will put the question on that amendment. If  a member wishes to withdraw their amendment   after it has been moved, they must seek  the committee’s agreement to do so. If   any committee member objects, the committee  immediately moves to a vote on that amendment. If any member does not want to move their  amendment when called, they should say,   “Not moved.” Please note that any other  MSP may move such an amendment.

If no one   moves the amendment, I will immediately call  the next amendment on the marshalled list. Only committee members are allowed to vote. Voting  in any division is by a show of hands. It is   important that members keep their hands clearly  raised until the clerk has recorded the vote. The convener has a personal vote as  a committee member and a casting vote   in the event of a tie. As the convener is not  available, I, as deputy convener, am carrying   out that function today. How I use my casting  vote is entirely down to my discretion; there   are no agreed conventions. However, if I use  my casting vote, immediately before doing so,   I intend to indicate the basis  on which I am using it each time. The committee is required to indicate formally  that it has considered and agreed to each section   of and schedule to the bill, so I will put  a question on each at the appropriate point.

With that now all on the record, we  move to the consideration of amendments. Section 1—Childhood assistance The first group is on childhood  assistance. Amendment 15,   in the name of the cabinet secretary, is  grouped with amendments 16 to 23 and 7. Good morning. The Scottish Government’s  amendments in this group would simplify   our approach to providing income-based  benefits for children and young people by   broadening the scope of the childhood assistance  provisions in section 1 and by repealing the   associated existing provisions on early years  assistance in the Social Security Act 2018. The primary reason for taking the  new childhood assistance powers   is to allow the Scottish child payment to be  put on a new legislative footing. I believe   that we should progress with providing  for eligibility to be the same for all   our five family payments while we have the  opportunity that is provided by the bill.

The changes will give the Scottish  ministers more flexibility in how they   develop regulations to support children  in low-income families in the future   and will allow for longer-term improvements  to the experience of clients who access the   range of support that is currently  offered by the five family payments. I will turn to some specific aspects of the  amendments. Amendments 19 and 17 will add   additional primary eligibility criteria  to the childhood assistance provisions,   broadly mirroring the existing early years  provisions in the Social Security Act 2018, with   some adjustments to the criteria in  relation to the definition of pregnant   women and persons with a relationship to  them, and of persons who are to, or have, “become responsible for a child” and persons with a relationship to them.

Amendment 20 widens the scope for giving  assistance in relation to a specific event   in a child’s life. Amendment 18 allows  for ministers to create regulations that   support families that were receiving  childhood assistance in cases when the   child to whom the claim related passed  away during the course of that claim. Amendment 15 provides for the repeal of the  existing early years provisions in the 2018 act,   with amendment 18 making transitional  provisions for best start grants. Amendment 7, in the name of Jeremy Balfour,  seeks to impose a duty on the Scottish   ministers to define through regulations what  being responsible for a child means for the   purpose of receiving assistance.

It would  also require them to provide assistance in   relation to a child to the individual who was  responsible for them at any point. I absolutely   share Mr Balfour’s concern about making sure  that we pay the money to the right person,   and I am grateful for his continued interest in  that issue and for our recent discussion on the   topic. However, his amendment is unnecessary.  The regulations under the 2018 act for our   current low-income benefits for children  already set out a child responsibility test   and contain a competing claims process that can  be used when child responsibility is disputed. Amendment 7 is based on the assumption that  there can be only one parent responsible for   a child at any given time, which is often not  the case.

That approach could unintentionally   undermine amicable shared care arrangements.  Social Security Scotland has existing processes   in place to resolve disputes between parents and  to act promptly on any change in circumstances,   and it is able to make a change in whom  payments are made to if required. I have   set out more information on that to  Mr Balfour in recent correspondence,   and I trust that he has had the  opportunity to consider that. I should also note that amendment 7, as  drafted, might affect young people aged   16 and above who wish to manage their own  assistance and have the capacity to do so,   as is currently possible with child  disability payment. The Government   therefore does not support amendment  7, and I ask Mr Balfour not to move it. I urge members to support my amendments in this  group, which allow us to set the groundwork for   improvements to the five family payments  in the future, but to reject amendment 7. Good morning, cabinet secretary and  colleagues. I confirm that we will   support all the amendments in the name  of the cabinet secretary in this group. I thank the cabinet secretary for her  engagement on my amendment 7 and for her   helpful letter of 16 September.

She has said  that we all wish to make sure that the money   follows the child and that those who are  responsible for the child get the money. I   welcome the information in the letter, but that  information might not be broadly understood by   the wider third sector. It would be helpful if the  Government and Social Security Scotland could make   that information better known so that parents and  third sector organisations that advise parents are   aware of it. The feedback that I have had from  organisations is that they are not aware of it. My understanding is that this is guidance  rather than regulation, so perhaps the cabinet   secretary could also deal with that point  when closing the debate on this group.

My   only concern is that guidance can be changed  by Social Security Scotland or the Scottish   Government without the Parliament knowing  that that is happening. We are trying to   proof the bill not just for now but for future  years and generations, so I wonder whether the   committee and the Parliament could be kept  up to date on any changes in that regard. In the light of what the cabinet secretary  has said, I will not move amendment 7.

As no other member wishes to speak at this  point, I ask the cabinet secretary to wind up. I will do so very briefly. Again, I thank Jeremy  Balfour for our discussions on those issues,   because an important point has been raised. As he  pointed out, his conversations with stakeholders   have suggested that the third sector does not  understand that area. It is the responsibility   of the agency, not the third sector, to make  sure that we do something about that. I confirm   to Mr Balfour that I will speak to the agency and  ask it to carry out further work with the third   sector and engage with wider stakeholders  to ensure that the guidance is understood.

Mr Balfour asked for further reassurances about  changes in guidance. Again, that is an important   point, not just on this issue but on others. If  the agency makes significant changes to guidance,   there should be a process to alert stakeholders  and the committee to that. I will take his point   away and reflect with the agency’s senior team  on how best to do that. I give my assurances   that we will work to provide reassurance  on the future proofing of that process. Amendment 15 agreed to. Amendments 16 to 23 moved——and agreed to. The next group is on relaxation of  application deadlines. Amendment 24,   in the name of the cabinet secretary,  is grouped with amendments 105 and 28. Amendments 24 and 28 amend the 2018 act in  order to allow late applications for social   security assistance. Stakeholders, including  Scottish Action for Mental Health, One Parent   Families Scotland and Stirling Council, called  for that change, while noting that flexibility   is already allowed for some benefits. Our  public consultation and our work with our   client and research panels showed strong support  for late application in exceptional circumstances. Amendments 24 and 28 will ensure a  fairer system that will allow more   people to access benefits, even if they  sometimes miss deadlines.

The committee   might remember that, when I appeared  before you at stage 1, I said that “We absolutely agree that social security should  be as accessible and accommodating as possible” and that the Government considers it “worth while, even if it helps only a handful   of cases. After all, that handful of cases  will involve people who are, potentially,   exceptionally vulnerable and are in  the most difficult of circumstances.”— The bill repeals section 52B of the 2018  act, which allowed for the relaxation of   deadlines where Covid was the reason  for a late application for assistance. The Government considered whether to make a global  provision in the bill, similar to section 52B,   as Paul O’Kane has proposed in amendment  105, which would replace reference to reasons   relating to Covid with a more general good  reasons or exceptional circumstances test. Section 52B, which was inserted into the 2018  act by the emergency bill that was delivered   at the height of the global pandemic,  takes an overarching approach to accepting   late applications for assistance.

In  those unprecedented circumstances,   where there were legal restrictions in place  on everyday life, the provision was a suitable   temporary solution to ensure that people were  not penalised for missing application deadlines. Thankfully, time has moved on  and those restrictions have been   lifted. The Scottish Government  delivers 14 forms of assistance,   all of which have different eligibility criteria  and, crucially, different application deadlines. Our view is that the approach in  amendments 24 and 28 is, therefore,   the best one. Drafting is framed broadly to allow  the regulations for each kind of assistance to   make provision about the circumstances in  which a late application is allowed, which   gives the amendments three distinct advantages  over the approach proposed in amendment 105. First, I emphasise that it creates a very wide  power to make provision in regulations about the   entire circumstances for late applications  generally. It does not limit the provision   to a single principle, such as allowing for  good reasons or exceptional circumstances for   late applications, as amendment 105 would do.  Instead, our approach would allow a tailored   and potentially different provision to  be made for each kind of assistance,   in response to the agency’s practical experience  on the ground of delivering that assistance.

Secondly, as well as being more flexible,  that way of doing it has the advantage that   it should result in a more beneficial,  responsive approach for individuals. Thirdly, our approach will also  ensure that all rules relating   to a form of assistance will be in the same place. A cross-cutting approach across the full  range of payments would work less effectively,   as it would require readers of the legislation  to effectively superimpose the provision on top   of various sets of rules that are contained  in a number of different sets of regulations. The application processes and deadlines for each  form of assistance are set out in regulations,   and it is appropriate that any relaxation of those  deadlines be set out in those regulations, too,   rather than in the bill.

For those reasons,  I ask Paul O’Kane not to move amendment 105. Amendment 105 would introduce the ability for  assistance to be backdated where applicable.   The power would allow Social Security  Scotland to award entitlement in a range   of circumstances that were not foreseen in  the 2018 act and the subsequent regulations. I am pleased that the amendment has the  support of the Child Poverty Action Group   in Scotland. Evidence from CPAG in Scotland’s  early warning system highlights that individuals   can lose out on money that they would have  been entitled to had they applied earlier,   because entitlement cannot be backdated to  a date before an application was received.

I believe that members will have  received examples of where that   is relevant in the briefing for stage 2 that  CPAG produced. Some of those scenarios are:   delayed applications in relation to a Scottish  child payment being dependent on an individual   receiving a qualifying benefit; applications  that span reaching adult or pension age;   terminal illness and issues therein; and  changes of circumstances between application,   submission and decision for  adult disability payment. Amendment 105 seeks to speak to the  principles behind the social security system,   which is there to provide a safety net for  the most vulnerable when they need it. The   system should not have people losing out  without good reason, particularly when the   system responsible for the delay in accessing  assistance has not been taken into account.

I recognise what the cabinet secretary said, that  there can be practical implications—financial and   otherwise—for the Government and Social Security  Scotland to consider around the implementation   of backdating. It is important, however, that we  ensure that the principle of backdating is at the   centre of the system. Amendment 105 would seek  to do so for the situations that I referenced. All three of the amendments in the  group are important. It is a really   helpful debate and it shows what the bill  can do—reviewing what we did initially,   how it has worked in practice and how it can  be improved. On balance, on this occasion,   the Scottish Government’s amendments are probably  more correct than Mr O’Kane’s, although they seek   to do almost exactly the same thing. For the  reasons that the cabinet secretary has given, we   will support amendments 24 and 28 and, with  reluctance, we will not support amendment 105. No other member wishes to speak at this point.  Cabinet secretary, would you like to wind up? I agree with Mr Balfour’s point that we  have broad agreement about the policy   intent.

It is important to ensure that  what was designed in 2018 is fit for   purpose and that we review what we  have learned during this period. I thank CPAG for its work on amendment 105  and Paul O’Kane for lodging it, because it   demonstrates that there are different ways of  achieving the same policy intent. However, for   the reasons that I have given, I think that the  Government’s approach is better. Mr O’Kane pointed   to the wide range of circumstances that we are  trying to encapsulate; it is important that we   do that through the regulations to ensure that  they are fit for purpose for each type of benefit   and payment. For those reasons, I request  that Mr O’Kane does not move his amendment. Amendment 24 agreed to. We move to a new group, on assistance  given in error.

Amendment 25 in the name   of the cabinet secretary is grouped  with amendments 26, 29 to 51 and 98. This group contains a total of 26 Scottish  Government amendments, all about liability   for assistance paid in error. During stage  1, we heard concerns from stakeholders and   members that, although the provisions in the  bill are welcome in principle, they are quite   confusing. I have listened to those concerns and  we have, accordingly, redrafted the provisions on   overpayment liability in their entirety to  set out more clearly our approach to that. Before I turn to the substantive change,  amendments 25, 26 and 51 in my name close a   gap in the 2018 act in relation to assistance paid  in error. As the committee is aware, liability for   overpayments arises from section 63 of the 2018  act or, in the case of the Scottish child payment,   the corresponding regulations made under section  79. Currently the provisions for deductions in   the schedules for assistance paid under chapter  2 of part 2 of the 2018 act allow the Scottish   ministers to make a deduction only in respect of  overpayment of assistance paid under the 2018 act,   whereas the Scottish child payment regulations  provide for deduction for overpayments of   assistance either under the 2018 act or  under the Scottish child payment regulations.

In practice, that means that an overpayment  of Scottish child payment or any other form   of assistance that is created using top-up powers  in the future, cannot be repaid by deduction from   any other on-going benefit. If a person has an  overpayment in their adult disability payment,   that can be repaid by deduction from the Scottish  child payment, but not the other way around. Deductions are often a preferred and simple  method for someone to repay an overpayment,   as they are set at a manageable level. As, I  am sure, the committee is aware, deductions   may only be made at a reasonable level that takes  into account individual financial circumstances   and in order to prevent hardship,  and there are challenge rights. Amendment 51 therefore closes a gap and  ensures that individuals have the convenience   of knowing that deductions for overpayments  from any form of on-going assistance can be   recovered from another in accordance with  our long-standing policy position. It does   that by inserting a new provision into the  deduction provisions in the schedules of the   2018 act to include any liabilities arising  from any top-up assistance regulations. Amendments 25 and 26 also future proof  the 2018 act by mirroring the deduction   provisions in the new schedule  for childhood assistance and,   if approved, they will ensure that the recovery  of overpayments of Scottish child payment or   any future top-up payment is in line with  all other forms of devolved assistance.

The Scottish Government’s amendments 29 to  34 have one overarching purpose, which is to   provide greater clarity around the liability for  any assistance paid in error for individuals and   for representatives who act on their behalf. When  the bill was introduced, it had separate sections   for the liability of individuals and for the  liability of their representatives. As I noted   at stage 1 of the bill, it became clear that  some stakeholders were confused about what was   being proposed and we have reflected on what  we can do to make things easier and clearer. The amended text in the proposed new sections  63, 63A and 63B of the 2018 act deals with the   liability of individuals and their representatives  and they simplify and clarify the provisions. Despite the large number of amendments in the  group, I reassure the committee that the two   key principles at introduction remain unchanged.  First, an individual’s representative will be   liable for overpaid assistance only where they  have benefited from the overpayment.

Secondly,   liability for both individuals and representatives  will arise from a decision of the Scottish   ministers rather than automatically. That  will allow us to create a system of reviews   and appeals rather than people having to  challenge liability in the sheriff court. The amended section 63 will set out  the circumstances in which Scottish   ministers may decide where an individual  or their representative is liable for an   overpayment.

Some stakeholders were concerned  that the provisions did not make clear enough   how liability would be decided between  an individual and their representative,   so we have clarified that. The new provisions  retain key concepts from the 2018 act,   such as definitions of error and fault  and what should be considered in deciding   whether an error is the sort of error that  a person could reasonably have been expected   to notice. I want to be crystal clear that the  protections of the 2018 act will remain in place. The proposed new section frames the questions  around liability in a more straightforward manner,   but the underlying concepts, the policy intent  and the implementation remain the same. Whereas   the 2018 act contains exclusions from liability,  the provisions have been simplified and they now   focus on establishing when someone is liable for  an overpayment, rather than when they are not. I   trust that the committee agrees that that is a  clearer way to set out how liability applies. Amendments 30, 31 and 32 will  remove the sections of the bill   that are replaced by the text in  proposed new sections 63A and 63B. Amendments 33 and 34 relate to section 69 of  the 2018 act, which focuses on the liability   for assistance that is given for a period  after death.

Sections 12 and 12 of the bill   as introduced would amend section 69 of the 2018  act, renaming and modifying it to specify that,   if a decision was made on liability after a  person had died, their estate would become   liable to repay the sums that the person  would have been liable for had they not   died. We reflected on that following stage 1,  and we have instead made provision for that in   subsections and of the modified section 63 that  is set out in amendment 29.

That will make the   drafting clearer by covering all liability  decisions in the same place. Amendments 33   and 34 therefore delete the changes that the  bill proposes to section 69 of the 2018 act. Amendment 33 will also allow the  Scottish ministers to recover any   assistance that was paid in the period  after an eligible person has died,   whether that was a result of a determination  or some other error, such as a systems error. The remaining amendments in the group—amendments  35 to 50—are minor technical amendments that make   consequential changes to the bill to ensure  that the section numbers and references   to individuals or their representatives are  consistent with the newly inserted provisions.

I am delighted that we have had  nearly half an hour of consensus,   although that might not continue. I welcome what the Government has proposed, but  it leaves a bit of concern about third-party   representation. It is often very hard for people  to find somebody who will represent them, and much   representation is done on a voluntary basis.  I am still concerned that the provisions will   put people off giving assistance. When CPAG  provided evidence to the committee, it said: “We would not want to discourage  people from being representatives”. I appreciate that the Government  is proposing to amend the bill,   but I do not think that it has gone far enough.

Glasgow City Council and CPAG pointed out  that it might be difficult in practice   to disentangle how much liability rests  with the individual and how much with the   representative. Although there has been  movement in that regard, the issue still   arises. When will the representative get the  benefit and when will the person who is making   the claim get it? I am unable to support  amendment 29. I ask the Government to think   about the matter again and provide greater  protection to third-party representatives,   otherwise I fear that we will see people who  volunteer not being willing to give their time. For that reason, although  amendment 30 is not perfect,   we will vote for it in order to allow the  Government to reflect again on the issues.   I have some concerns about amendment 33  on the liability of a person’s estate.

Perhaps it is my lack of understanding,  but I am interested to know for how long   a period a claim could be made against  someone’s estate. We could end up with   families who want to distribute assets  to other family members being unable to   do so because the assets are held up in some  kind of claim from Social Security Scotland.   If we are going to include that in  the bill, will the Government reflect   on having some kind of timescale for it? What  protection would be given to residue benefits? Will the cabinet secretary also clarify that  representatives will have a right to review,   as individuals have? Amendment 39 removes  that right.

I think that that is covered   by amendment 29, but it would be  good to get that on the record. We all have the same intention, which is that  we want people to be represented in a way that   we feel would be best for them. There is  often representation by a third party who,   in practice, is often a volunteer. I am  concerned that, as the bill is drafted,   people will be put off doing that.  I think that there is an opportunity   for us to reflect and see whether we can  give greater protection to third parties. As no other member wishes to speak, I  invite the cabinet secretary to wind up. Mr Balfour is quite right to say that third party  representation is exceptionally important for   people and I understand his position. There is no  disagreement between us on the policy intent. I   thank him for bringing the issue to the committee  and to my attention.

I recognise that it is still   a concern, and I am more than happy to continue  discussions with him and with stakeholders   directly in order to see whether there is more  that can be done to reassure them between stages   2 and 3 of the bill, because we do not want to do  anything that puts people off, as volunteers are   an exceptionally important part of the process. I  am not entirely sure that an amendment is required   at this stage, so Mr Balfour will forgive me  if I do not put that reassurance to him today. My understanding is that any claim on the estate  would be part of the usual executory practice.   The deadlines and timeframes for that are set out  in regulations that are outwith social security,   but there would be no delay because of  social security. There would also be a   right to review. I hope that I have been able  to provide some reassurance on those points. As   I said in my opening remarks, many of  the amendments are technical in nature.   Mr Balfour has raised a particular  point on third-party representation,   which I am happy to further consider  with him and others, should they so wish.

Amendment 25 agreed to. Amendment 26 moved——and agreed to. Section 1, as amended, agreed to. Section 2—Care experience assistance The next group is on care  experience assistance. Amendment 1,   in the name of Jeremy Balfour, is  grouped with amendments 27 and 2. Section 2 introduces a new  benefit called care experience   assistance. Beyond that, we have no idea  what we will be voting for. There is no   substantial detail on how the benefit  will work. What is it? Who will benefit   from it? What timescales are involved?  What process will take place? It seems   slightly strange that we will be voting for a  new benefit without having any of that detail.

We all want care experience assistance to be  introduced. Yesterday afternoon, some of us   attended an event at which we heard  about the negative experiences that   some people have when they are in care. However,  I find it difficult to leave the timescale   open-ended and let the Government go away and do  whatever it wants. Regulations will come along at   some point, but—I say this with due respect to the  cabinet secretary—under the present Government,   timescales seem to slip from time  to time. I am seeking to make sure   that care experience assistance  comes about in a timely manner. My amendment 2 seeks to provide that the  regulations in question must be laid within   24 months of the bill receiving royal assent. That  would give the Government plenty of time to engage   with stakeholders, and it would give the committee  and the Parliament as a whole plenty of time to   scrutinise those regulations and to make sure  that they were appropriate.

It would also mean   that the people who expect to receive such  assistance would not be left not knowing when   or if the new benefit will be introduced. None  of us knows what will happen at the election in   14 or 15 months’ time. A different Government with  completely different priorities could be elected,   and care experience assistance could simply  disappear off the map and never be introduced. We all have the same policy intent as the cabinet  secretary. Amendment 2 simply seeks to make the   Government move slightly more quickly than it  has done in the past and to give stakeholders   and the committee reassurance that care  experience assistance will be introduced. All the amendments in this group relate to care  experience assistance. The bill as introduced   includes a broad regulation-making power  to create one or more schemes to provide   financial assistance to care-experienced  people. Although the intention is to use   that power to create the care leaver  payment in the first instance, other   forms of assistance may be delivered  under the provision in the future. Jeremy Balfour’s amendment 1 seeks to place  a statutory duty on the Scottish ministers to   create one or more schemes to provide financial  assistance to care-experienced people, and   amendment 2 seeks to ensure that the relevant  regulations are laid within two years of the bill   receiving royal assent.

Although I appreciate  the intention behind Mr Balfour’s amendments,   I reassure the committee that the  Scottish Government remains committed   to the care leaver payment and resolute in  our commitment to keeping the Promise by 2030. Officials continue to progress focused work  on the care leaver payment, including a public   consultation and dedicated engagement  sessions. An independent analysis report   on that work was published on 18 June.  That report is vital in ensuring that the   voices of care-experienced people are at the  heart of the policy that is developed on the   payment. Although work is progressing at pace  on the development of the care leaver payment,   timelines for its delivery are dependent on  the timescales for the bill and subsequent   legislative processes, including  the laying of regulations. However,   I reassure Mr Balfour and the committee  that the intention is very much to proceed   so that the process is completed before  the end of the parliamentary session.

The current provisions in the bill  include a requirement to consult ahead   of care experience assistance regulations  being laid. That will provide a further   opportunity to engage with care-experienced  people and the wider public to ensure that   the care leaver payment best meets  the needs of young people before it   is delivered. Regulations will be laid  to deliver the care leaver payment once   the results of that future consultation  have been analysed and fully considered. The wording that is proposed in amendment 1 would  create inconsistency between care experience   assistance and the regulation-making powers in  respect of other assistance that are provided   under the 2018 act. There is no  precedent elsewhere in that act. On amendment 2, as I have mentioned, the new power  in the bill could be used in the future to deliver   other forms of assistance for care-experienced  people in addition to the care leaver payment.   The time restriction on the laying of regulations  that is proposed in amendment 2 would cut across   that and would restrict our ability to offer  support to those who need it in the future.   I am sure that members would not want to do  that.

I think that we would want to preserve   the flexibility of the bill as introduced. On  that basis, the Government does not support   amendments 1 and 2, and I ask Jeremy Balfour not  to press amendment 1 and not to move amendment 2. Amendment 27, in my name, adds the power  to make provision for redeterminations,   which mirrors the language and processes that  are currently used by Social Security Scotland   and contained in the 2018 act. The inclusion  of redeterminations in the provision future   proofs the regulation-making power, should  Social Security Scotland be the preferred   delivery vehicle for any schemes that are  created under care experience assistance.

I ask the committee to support amendment 27,  and I urge it to reject Mr Balfour’s amendments. Similar to what I have said previously,  there is a desire to ensure that care   leavers are well supported and that the  payments come on stream at the right time. I have a degree of sympathy with Jeremy  Balfour’s amendment 1 in ensuring that the   Government produces relevant regulations.  We have often seen things not happen,   and having timescales is important. I  would add the caveat that it is important   for the system to be designed by  people who are care experienced,   who sit within the well-established structures  across the work that has been done on the Promise   and on other issues. When the committee took  evidence at stage 1, we spoke about that. As   I said, I have a degree of sympathy with the  idea of trying to compel ministers to do that.

On amendment 2 and Jeremy Balfour’s concern  about the timing of the election and the   implementation of regulations, there could be  a negative impact, depending on the outcome   of the election and who forms the Government,  but it could go the other way, too, of course:   someone might want to change the regulations  to make them more wide ranging or do something   different, depending on further consultation  and on what happens with different groupings.   It works both ways, so I perhaps  have less sympathy with amendment 2. We are happy to support amendment 27,  in the name of the cabinet secretary,   given the tidying-up, technical nature of it. I clarify that we support amendment  27, in the cabinet secretary’s name. When you become old and cynical like me—I have  been on the committee for seven years now, I   think—you might get used to hearing  certain words.

If I had a pound for   every time I heard about “the intention” to do  something, I would be happily in the Bahamas,   by myself. I am concerned that things  could slip. None of us knows what is   around the corner, and other priorities can  come forward for the Scottish Government. Yesterday afternoon, some of us attended a meeting  with board members of The Promise Scotland,   who are critical of the slow progress that is  being made. They want to see something happen. I absolutely agree with Mr O’Kane that it is  important for the system to be designed with   the appropriate stakeholders in mind. I  think that that can be done within two   years—if future Governments want to make  alterations, they can do so. However,   I am still concerned that the Parliament does  not have a great track record on delivering   the promises that we make. I will therefore  press amendment 1 and put that timescale to   the Government, in the hope that we can all get  to where we want to be within a reasonable time. The question is, that amendment  1 be agreed to.

Are we agreed? There will be a division. Against Doris, Bob McNair, Marie  Stewart, Kevin Torrance, David The result of the division is:  For 4, Against 4, Abstentions 0. The vote is tied. In such circumstances,  as convener, I have discretion to use   my casting vote, and I intend  to use it in the same way as I   used my personal vote. I vote against  the amendment, so amendment 1 falls. Amendment 1 disagreed to. Amendment 27 moved——and agreed to. Amendment 2 not moved. The question is, that amendment  2 be agreed to. Are we agreed? I did not move the amendment. I thank members for stepping into the  deliberate trap that I set for them.   That being the case, consider  yourselves suitably chastised. Rather, the question is, that  section 2, as amended, be agreed to. Section 2, as amended, agreed to. After section 2 The next group is on carer  support payment. Amendment 3,   in the name of Jeremy Balfour,  is grouped with amendment 4. The next few proposed sections all relate to  increasing the amount of money that the Scottish   Government pays to the most vulnerable  in society. As we all know, we are in a   difficult financial situation, which is likely  to continue for the foreseeable future.

However,   I do not think that that means that we  stop looking after the most vulnerable   in our society. As the deputy convener likes  to say on numerous occasions at this committee,   we all have political choices to make,  and these are political choices that   we must now make as a committee  and, ultimately, as a Parliament. We all recognise that carers in our society do  an immense amount of work—work that goes unseen   and which saves the taxpayer billions of pounds  a year. The sacrifices made by those who care   for loved ones, whether they be a husband  or a wife, a child or another relative,   are immense. Many of them have to change or  give up their jobs, and many have to change   their social life. Sadly, towards the end of  the individual’s life, carers often see the   pain that they are going through and the lack  of fulfilment in their life.

Many carers make   that sacrifice because they love the person whom  they are caring for, but that comes at a cost. I am pleased that the Government has moved  to some extent in that regard by extending   the carer support payment post death. However, I  think that we can go further. My amendment 3 seeks   to extend the payment for six months, so that  the person who has given so much can readjust   to a whole new life—emotionally and physically—as  well as readjust their financial situation with   regard to what they want to do next. Many will  have to seek training or upskill to get a job;   some will have to do CVs and go for job  interviews; others will simply need the time   and space to grieve the loss of someone  whom they have poured so much into.

I do not think it unreasonable for us as a society  to acknowledge that and to extend the payment to   six months; indeed, I have spoken to many carers  organisations, and they say that one big change   that they would look to make is for such an  extension to be brought in. I appreciate that   the cabinet secretary will say, rightly, that that  will come at a cost, but I ask members to think of   the cost to those people of what they  have given the rest of us in society.

As for my amendment 4, the issue of  the hard cliff edge has come up again   and again. If a person simply steps over the  line, they lose everything. That is true for   the carer support payment and for other  payments. I am not suggesting that this   is an easy issue for us to deal with—I know that  greater minds than mine have tried to look at it. However, I think that, with the right wind  and the right engagement with the sector,   Government and lawyers, we can identify  a tapering system that means that,   if somebody’s financial situation changes  only slightly, they get less of a payment   but do not lose all of it. I think that  that can be done fairly quickly through   regulation. I would like the Government  to commit to looking at a tapering process   that would give a bit of flexibility to  individuals who are caring for someone,   so that they do not lose the whole benefit, just  because of a small change in their circumstances. I believe that, together, amendments  3 and 4 readdress where carers are at   the moment. They will not address all the issues,   but they would be a massive step forward.

If  we, as a Parliament, were to agree to them,   it would send a very positive message to the many  hundreds who care for people across Scotland. Before I bring in the cabinet secretary, I  will make a brief contribution, which the   cabinet secretary might reflect on in her reply. I understand that there are already plans for  the Scottish Government to extend the run-on of   the benefit. Does that require to be detailed in  the bill? Is it a policy decision, with a budget   implication, that can be taken at a later date?  Irrespective of how long we wish the support   payment to run for, I wonder whether it requires  an amendment to be placed in the legislation. I thank Mr Balfour for lodging his amendments  and for his and other members’ continued   support for carers across the country. Mr Balfour   is right to state once again the  important role that carers play. However, the Government cannot support Mr  Balfour’s amendments 3 and 4. The Scottish   Government is transforming financial support  for unpaid carers in Scotland, by recognising   the value of unpaid care and providing  greater stability and support.

Carer support   payment, which is available in 13 local authority  areas and will launch nationally from November,   is already extending support to more  carers and providing an improved service,   with further key changes planned. The committee  will also be well aware that, when social security   powers were devolved, one of the first actions  was to make additional payments to carers. Mr Doris is quite right to point out that  the Government is already committed to   extending, from eight to 12 weeks, support for  carers after the loss of a cared-for person.

My   officials are already working to deliver that,  including engaging with the Department for   Work and Pensions to ensure that the necessary  arrangements are made to protect carers’ wider   support. To ensure that carers who are already  getting carers allowance are not disadvantaged,   we will make that change once the  process of case transfer is complete. Amendment 3 seeks to extend that run-on  to 24 weeks. It would be best if we looked   at that in the future, once we have  delivered the extension to 12 weeks,   to allow more detailed consideration  of implications for budgets.

Mr Balfour will agree that any change to  entitlement that would result in increased   costs for the Scottish Government, which are  not covered through the block grant adjustment,   needs to be carefully considered. Indeed,  many of his colleagues remind me of that   responsibility in the chamber and point out that  the Scottish Government already invests £1.1   billion in social security, on top of the block  grant adjustment. His colleagues raise that as a   concern, rather than something that the Government  should be proud of. However, I am proud of it. Further consideration and discussions with the DWP  would be needed on any extension to 24 weeks. As   we have discussed before in the committee, that  is important, because we do not want to adversely   affect any other support that carers rely on. Many  carers receive extra support and other benefits,   such as universal credit, because of their  entitlement to the carer support payment,   in the same way as carers who get carers  allowance. The more carer support payment   diverges from carers allowance, the greater  the risk to carers’ continued eligibility   for that extra support. I urge members not to  pass anything into legislation that would put   other payments in jeopardy, no matter how  good the intent behind those amendments.

I turn to amendment 4, which seeks to amend  provisions in the 2018 act so that carers   assistance regulations can provide for assistance  to be tapered when carers’ earnings increase. We   recognise the concerns that carers and  support organisations raised about the   impact that earnings rules can have on  carers’ ability to take on paid work. We have made improvements to earnings  processes in carer support payment,   working with carers and support organisations  to provide clearer information for clients,   and calculating carers’ average earnings to  help to provide more stable support where   earnings vary. We also took feedback  through our public consultation on   changes that we could make in the future once  case transfer for carers allowance was complete. An earnings taper, with carer support  payment being gradually reduced as earnings   increased—that is, as I understand it, the  aim of amendment 4—would be one approach   to changing the earnings rules. The idea was  considered ahead of the consultation as part   of a multicriteria appraisal process undertaken  with stakeholders, and it found that a taper   would add significant complexity to the benefit  with regard to build, operational delivery,   clients’ understanding of eligibility and how  the benefit would interact with wider support,   such as universal credit.

The fact  that carer support payment affects the   amounts of universal credit that carers receive  and that universal credit itself has an earnings   taper would add significant complexity, in  addition to the fact that the divergence   from carers allowance could again put at risk the  extra support—the carer element—that is currently   available under universal credit for  those who get carer support payment. We explored other, potentially more effective,  ways of improving the earnings rules in our   consultation, such as a run-on of support when  carers earn over the threshold and increasing   the overall threshold. We are continuing to  consider the responses to the consultation,   as well as further considering the potential input   on carers’ wider support and affordability and  sustainability in the wider Scottish budget. Finally, I highlight that, even if a decision  were taken in the future to introduce an   earnings taper for carers assistance,  it is already possible to do so under   existing enabling powers in the 2018 act. The  proposed amendment is therefore unnecessary. For all those reasons, I urge the  committee to reject amendments 3 and 4,   should Mr Balfour choose to press them. I call Jeremy Balfour to wind up  and press or withdraw amendment 3.

The cabinet secretary has raised quite a number  of issues. At a high philosophical level,   the issue—which I think that the cabinet  secretary and others will come back to   time and again—is about the divergence were  we to do things differently in Scotland to   the rest of the United Kingdom, and how  the DWP would respond to it. However,   at some point, we will have to see  how that challenge works in practice. I see no point in having a devolved social  security system that simply mirrors what happens   in the DWP all the way through—that seems to me an  administrative cost for Scotland to be carrying. I   accept that, because of Social Security Scotland,  we can introduce new benefits, which we will come   to in a moment. However, if we are not going  to, at some point, change our approach from   what happens in the DWP, why do we have Social  Security Scotland here, as it is set up at the   moment? At some point, this or a future Government  will have to see how the DWP reacts to it. I see where the member is coming from.

However,   the way to test out what the DWP will do is not  by putting provisions in primary legislation,   which is exceptionally difficult to unpick. We do  not want to find out what the DWP will do if what   it does will adversely affect clients, because  undoing primary legislation is exceptionally   challenging. Although I understand the  member’s point, I strongly urge him not   to use primary legislation to attempt to force  the DWP’s hand or to find out what it thinks.

I accept the cabinet secretary’s point. However,   we are at stage 2. If the amendment were to  be agreed to today, I am sure that she could   pick up a telephone or send an email  to the new cabinet secretary down south   to find out how they would react and, at  stage 3, we could have the debate again. Mr Doris and the cabinet secretary have  picked up on the challenges of doing this   through primary legislation rather  than by regulations. As the deputy   convener will know, however, the trouble  with regulations is that you cannot vote   against just one bit of them—you have to  either accept them all or reject them all.   Regulations might come forward from the  Government in which 99 per cent is right,   but 1 per cent is the key financial thing. I  would not want to vote against somebody getting   something except by amendment, which is why  primary legislation is a better way of doing this. I accept the cabinet secretary’s comments about   budget, but that is about political  choices. She often makes the point   to me in the chamber that we have political  choices. The money that the Scottish Government   has would be much better spent on supporting  carers than on some of the other projects that   the Government seems to be pushing forward.  For that reason, I will be moving amendment 3.

As for amendment 4, I accept what the cabinet  secretary has said, and I will go away and   reflect on it. For that reason, I  will not be moving that amendment,   but I reserve the right to  see what happens at stage 3. Mr Balfour, you have already moved amendment  3. Are you pressing or withdrawing it? I am pressing it hard, convener. Okay—that is certainly on the record. The question is, that amendment  3 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division.

The result of the division is:  For 4, Against 4, Abstentions 0. We again have a tie. As convener, I  have a personal vote and a casting vote,   and I will again use my casting  vote in the same way that I use my   personal vote. I therefore vote against  amendment 3, so the amendment falls. Amendment 3 disagreed to. Amendment 4 not moved. We move to a new group, on winter heating  assistance. At the end of this group,   we will stop for a short comfort break—I  am just giving members that information in   advance. Amendment 5, in the name of Jeremy  Balfour, is the only amendment in the group. As I spent the summer considering possible  amendments to the bill, this amendment was   one that came forward as I was drafting. It  happened before the announcement by the UK   Government, and the announcement by the Scottish  Government, in regard to winter heating payments.

The decision that the UK Government  has made is very disappointing, and   it affects many individuals.  I understand why the Scottish   Government made its decision, but that  was also a disappointing announcement. Amendment 5 does not seek to give all older  people a kind of winter heating payment;   it seeks to give such a payment to a  specific vulnerable group in our society. We all know that many older people spend a  lot more time at home than other people do. We   understand that older people often live in houses  that do not have the best heating or insulation   but are unable to move, for many different  reasons. Amendment 5 says that those who are   on attendance allowance—or on the new Scottish  benefit that is equivalent to that—and so are   over 65, and are on the high rate, should receive  the winter heating payment.

We already do that   for children under 16 who are on a high rate of  care, because the Parliament and the Government   recognise that those children are often at  home and so their heating costs are higher. The amendment seems to me to offer  a reasonable mitigation of where   we are at the moment. It will give  those who are at home the most the   protection of some financial help in  meeting their winter heating payments. We all understand that next month  heating prices are likely to go   up across the UK. We recognise that many people   in Scotland live in colder conditions  than other people in the United Kingdom.

It is a political choice to say that we  want to look after and protect the most   vulnerable people in our society. To me, that  seems to be the right way forward. We were right   to pass legislation that allowed the Government  and, ultimately, the Parliament to create new   benefits. This new benefit would help people  who are at home, who are often cold. It is not   often that I agree with Richard Leonard, but,  at last week’s meeting of the cross-party group   on older people, age and ageing, he pointed out  that he was concerned that we might go back to   the conditions of the 1970s and 1980s, and that  we will see people dying in their homes because   they are cold.

We need to mitigate that risk as  much as we can. The people who are most likely   to be affected are those with disabilities,  who cannot move around as much as others. My proposal is not part of a wish list  or just something that we could do. We   need to do it if we are to protect the  most vulnerable people in our society. I note what Mr Balfour said in his contribution.  More widely, I note that the pension age winter   heating payment is a benefit that has been  created under powers that have been newly   devolved to the Parliament. We have not  discussed the benefit in recent months,   but we did so in the lead-up  to that devolution process.

As Mr Balfour mentioned, we must also  acknowledge the context of the decision   to extend the benefit only to people who are  in receipt of pension credit, and the Scottish   Government’s agreement to that rule. I have said  that it is for the Parliament, and this committee,   to continue to work on the new benefit. It is fair  that they should decide what any new benefit in   Scotland should look like. It is appropriate that  such a discussion should be had. I think that all   members across the Parliament are willing to  come together and debate the relevant criteria. However, we must recognise, too, that regulations  have not yet been introduced. The Government has   intimated its intention to pass the benefit  back for a temporary period of a year,   in order to deliver it to people who are  in receipt of pension credit.

We have   not yet seen regulations or held a debate on  that. I have not yet been able to scrutinise   and understand Social Security Scotland’s  system, to learn why it cannot deliver a   different one and why the handing back has had to  happen. We must recognise where we are on that. It is fair to say that we must consider several  issues affecting how the benefit could best   be delivered and what changes there might be. Mr  Balfour has proposed two enabling benefits in this   area. More widely, more work needs to be done—for  example, on how pension credit and housing benefit   interact, and on what decisions and outcomes might  arise from any future fiscal events at UK level. I understand why Mr Balfour has lodged amendment  5. It is important that, as a committee and   as a Parliament, we consider the benefit in a  Scottish context. However, there are unanswered   questions around his proposal, not least in  terms of who the benefit would reach, the cost,   how the rules would be applied and whether the  system could deliver the benefit that he seeks. Given that we have a period of a year before  the benefit is enacted and will be carried   by Social Security Scotland, I consider that  it would be wise for us to consider it in the   round.

I do not reject his proposal out of  hand, but I think it important that we have   further scrutiny and debate. Stage 3 could be  an appropriate point to continue that process. I very much welcome the fact that we are having  this discussion, although, as Paul O’Kane has   said, it is part of a far wider one that I  suspect we will have over the coming weeks. I have a number of questions. I have already  had a discussion with Jeremy Balfour,   in which I indicated that I hoped that I  would be able to do cross-party work with   him on the issue. I am sure that other  colleagues would want to do so. I know   that Scottish Labour very much wants to work  with the Scottish Government in this area.

It would be helpful to know whether  we have any information on the cost   of the proposal that is before us today  on the specific benefits—the highest rate   of attendance allowance and the highest  rate of pension age disability allowance.   I appreciate that Mr Balfour might have that  information, but it is more likely that the   Scottish Government might be able to provide  that information either today or before stage 3. It would also be helpful to know what the cost  would be if the amendments were to be expanded   to include other benefits. Mr Balfour has  restricted the provisions of amendment 5 to   the highest rates of attendance allowance and  pension age disability allowance.

I hear what   he said about the amendments having been drafted  before the decision of the UK Parliament. However,   there is clearly a relationship between the  winter fuel payment and the potential new   allowance. From what Mr Balfour is saying, his  intention is that the proposed assistance would   be in addition to the winter fuel payment, which  perhaps addresses one of the questions that I was   going to ask about those who will still receive  winter fuel payment because they receive pension   credit. I think that Mr Balfour envisages  that it would be additional to the winter   fuel payment. I am clear on that, but it  would be helpful to know whether any costings   work has been done or could be done on other  rates of attendance allowance, pension age   disability allowance, housing benefit or, indeed,  whether any other timescales are being envisaged.

There is some indication from the  Scottish Government of timescales   for when the benefit might realistically  be implemented. However, given that we   know that there often seem to be  considerable administration issues,   I wonder whether the cabinet secretary  could provide that information today. I suspect that, before stage 3, we might  have more information on consequentials,   which would be useful to know. I know that the  First Minister made a statement this week that   mentioned a figure, but there will be further  consequentials. A number of councils in England   are considering taking similar steps. As I  say, this is something that this Parliament   will want to look at on a cross-party basis  and I hope that, as the debate continues,   a similar amendment, or maybe one that includes  other benefits, could be lodged at stage 3.

I recognise that the amendment was  lodged before the UK Government’s   decision to slash winter fuel payments. In itself,   amendment 5 means an extension to the social  security system, which I am not against. Mr Balfour talked about mitigation. Again, I am  not agin mitigation; we have mitigated a lot of   cuts in the Parliament previously. However, it  annoys me when advocates for the union, such as   Mr Balfour, come here with the expectation that  the Scottish Government should be able to extend,   expand and mitigate when the resources are  not coming from the UK Treasury. Let us face   facts. The cabinet secretary is going to  have to deal with some of these issues,   knowing fine that £160 million that she  expected has now been pulled by the UK Treasury.

I get the points that Mr O’Kane and Ms Clark  have made about further exploration of all this;   it needs to be done. We also need to be blunt with   the UK Treasury about the  scenario that we now face. Ms Clark talked about consequentials. I  believe that we should always interrogate   consequentials to see what can be  done with them. In this case, however,   we are facing negative consequentials,  with £160 million being pulled out of the   Scottish Government’s budget with a snap  of the fingers. That is not good enough. I think that committee members, instead  of talking about expansion right now,   have to look at the cards that we have been dealt  by the UK Treasury and the Westminster Government,   and recognise that we cannot  mitigate the impact of every   single decision, in particular when £160  million has disappeared just like that. Before I bring in the cabinet secretary, I  will make a brief contribution. It is not   in a political vein—I clearly have some very  strong views on what the UK Government has   done with regard to winter fuel payments, but,  as I am chairing today’s meeting, I will put   those views to one side for  the purpose of this debate.

I say to Mr Balfour that, in my view, this  is where a politically very well-intentioned   amendment meets the harsh realities of budgetary  constraints and the sobering fiscal position in   which the Scottish Government finds  itself, which is directly related   to Westminster fiscal positions and spending  decisions. That makes it incredibly difficult   to land where Mr Balfour has landed, as well  intentioned as the policy that he proposes is. Ms Clark made some reasonable points.

If—if, I  say to Mr Stewart—it was remotely possible to   mitigate the impact of the decision on  winter fuel payments, despite the huge   and severe financial pressures on this place,  that would need to be considered in the round,   so Mr Balfour’s amendment is not  necessarily the way to do it. I just want to put that on the record.  I hope that I have not strayed into   the political arena; it is more about the  practicalities of what we would like to do.

Cabinet secretary, I will bring you in. Amendment 5, from Jeremy Balfour, is focused  on expanding eligibility to provide winter   heating assistance via the winter heating  payment to people who are on the higher   rates of the pension age disability  payment and attendance allowance. From the outset, I say that the way to  protect people of pensionable age is for   the UK Government to reverse the decision  to means test the winter fuel payment,   and to reinstate the payment for all pensioners.  To pick up on one aspect of what Mr O’Kane said,   the Scottish Government does not agree to  the change—we are reluctantly being forced   into a position, given the aforementioned  £160 million cut from the UK Government.

We are doing so, therefore,  very much against our wishes   on the issue. It is not too late for  the UK Government to reconsider its   position on the matter, and we would  all be in a better place for it. In the context of a wider debate about  the devolution of the winter fuel payment,   the Poverty and Inequality Commission’s advice  on whether the payments should be means tested   said that that should be explored. What is  the cabinet secretary’s view on that advice,   which came from her own commission? I do not think that the commission actually  meant that we were going to take that money   away entirely. I do not want to speak  for the commission, but when I read the   report, I took from it that, if we are looking  at means testing, the commission may wish us   to use that money in another way to provide  support for other pensioners; it is not for   the money to be whipped away by the UK Government  so that it is not available for anything at all. The commission raised a point around targeting,   but I think that that was for  better use of the entire pot,   not for most of the pot to be completely  disappeared and not available to anyone.

As has been mentioned, Mr Balfour’s amendments  do not include disabled people who might receive   other disability benefits. Even if his  intent was to assist, therefore, he has   missed some individuals out. I will come  back to that point when we come to cost. Before winter heating assistance was introduced  in 2023, the Scottish Government listened to   our experience panels and carried  out public consultation. We decided   to provide a stable £50 payment, which  will be increased to £58.75 this winter,   to replace the previous complex  and weather-dependent system.

Making further changes to eligibility at  this time is not the correct approach,   because that would present financial, legal  and operational challenges, including,   but not limited to, the negotiation of a new  set of data-sharing agreements with the DWP.   Depending on a number of factors, Mr Balfour’s  proposals are also likely to add around £6 million   to the money spent on the winter heating  payment for 2025-26. If others were to be   included—I have already mentioned that there  are other people on disability payments that   this payment misses—that cost would increase.  That is additional money that is not covered   by the Scottish block grant and would  have to be found from somewhere else. However, I have already committed to continuing  to review eligibility, as we continue to deliver   this important payment, and that review should  be informed by analysis and an impact assessment   that capture a wider group of people than the  groups that Mr Balfour’s amendments identify. For those reasons, the Government  does not support amendment 5,   and I ask Mr Balfour not to press it. I have no  doubt that we will have further discussions on   the UK Government’s decision to take away  the universality of the winter fuel payment.   We will come back to what happens to support  people who are living in fuel poverty.

However,   with the greatest respect, Mr Balfour,  all that must be done in the financial   context in which we live. I point to comments  that Liz Smith made in the chamber. She said: “The Scottish Fiscal Commission  has made it abundantly clear that   much of the pressure that is faced by the  country’s finances is down to the Scottish   Government’s own decisions. For example …  the extent of the gap between the spending   on devolved social security and the  associated block grant adjustment”.— The decision by the Scottish Government to  invest more than the block grant adjustment is   a political choice, but, with the greatest respect  to all members, the ability to come forward with   amendments to place additional pressures on  the block grant adjustment, with regard to not   only benefits expenditure but the  costs of implementation, is something   that I strongly suggest needs to be discussed in  the round, not in relation to a stage 2 amendment.

I invite Jeremy Balfour to wind up  and to press or withdraw amendment 5. This has been a helpful debate,  and I think that we will come   back to it again and again. I agree, for  once, with the cabinet secretary. The UK   Government’s decision to take away £160  million for the winter fuel payment is   deeply disappointing. For your first big  policy decision to attack some of the most   vulnerable people in society is not a  great way for any Government to start. I point out to Mr Stewart that, under  the previous Conservative Government,   the block grant has gone up  every year ahead of inflation— Not in real terms. Yes, in real terms, Mr Stewart.  Therefore, there has been more   money to spend.

That comes back to the point  that we keep making, namely that these are   political choices that each party has  to make about how we spend the money. This goes back to previous points, so I  will not labour it, but what is the role   for Social Security Scotland? Are we simply,  as I think that Mr Stewart seems to be saying,   going to provide a mirror image  of what happens at DWP level,   or are we going to do something that is best for  the people whom we represent here in Scotland? We do not mirror everything that is  happening south of the border.

For   example, look at the investment in the  Scottish child payment and the fact that   benefits here have risen above inflation,  which has not happened south of the border. However, we also have to deal with the realities.  As I said earlier, Mr Balfour is a supporter of   the union. That is up to him, but he also has to  recognise that the actions of the UK Treasury have   implications for spend here in Scotland. When  £160 million disappears, that does not leave   much room for manoeuvre, and it certainly  does not leave any room for the expansion   of benefits or for further mitigation. I think  that Mr Balfour has to deal with that reality. I gave you a bit of latitude, Mr Stewart,  because this is quite an emotive issue, but   that was more of a speech than an intervention.  However, your points are now on the record. Mr Balfour, please bring your remarks to a close. I will respond briefly to what  Mr Stewart has said.

He talked   about new benefits, but he has not talked  about existing benefits. Existing benefits   at the moment in regard to  criteria and eligibility— Will Jeremy Balfour give way? Can I finish this one point? The criteria and eligibility for adult  disability payment exactly mirror those   of PIP. There is no difference. I appreciate that the convener  might wish to move things on but,   on a point of clarity, of the £1.1 billion that we  invest in addition to the block grant adjustment,   £500 million is spent on the Scottish  child payment.

It is true that some of   it is spent on additional payments,  but additional money also goes into   adult disability payment because of the  way in which we are running the system. I am afraid that Mr Balfour is not correct  in saying that we have the same system,   either in terms of culture or in terms  of delivery. Quite frankly, Mr Balfour,   we would not be spending £1.1 billion more if I  was just doing a cut and paste of the DWP system. Perhaps the cabinet secretary has intervened  slightly too early. I did not talk about culture   or process; I talked about eligibility, and the  eligibility rules, except for those on terminal   illness, are identical in the two systems.  It is important to get that on the record. Will you talk about pressing  or withdrawing your amendment? Yes, I will.

I just have two quick  points to make in summing up. I am very happy to work together with all parties  to move the issue forward, but my concern is that,   if we keep talking about it for too long,  nothing will happen. This is an opportunity   for us as a Parliament to make a decision, and  I hope that we can revert to it at stage 3. Mr Stewart, the cabinet secretary and Mr Doris  have talked about money. It is true that we get   the money that is given to us by Westminster;  however, we then get to choose how we spend   that money. Perhaps if we stopped getting  our shipbuilding contracts so badly wrong,   we would have more money to spend. Perhaps if  we did not put people and open embassies in   other parts of the world, we would have more  money to spend.

Those are political choices   that Governments make. I think that people  would prefer that we gave money to the most   vulnerable in society, rather than giving it to  projects that the Government simply cannot run. On that basis, I will— I am now giving you some latitude, Mr  Balfour. Please draw your remarks to a close. Can I have a point of order before I close? There is no provision for a  point of order, Mr Balfour.

In that case, I press my amendment. Thank you—that is helpful. The question is,  that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we agreed? There will be a division. Abstentions Clark, Katy O’Kane, Paul The result of the division is:  For 2, Against 4, Abstentions 2. Amendment 5 disagreed to. Just one moment, Mr Balfour,  if you will bear with me. There are no point of order procedures in  committee, Mr Balfour—I was just getting   clarity because, as deputy convener, I do  not normally convene the committee.

We are   about to suspend for a comfort break. If you  want to discuss something informally with me,   we can work out how we handle  what your point of order might   have been when we go back into open  session. We suspend until about 10.35. Welcome back, everyone. Our stage 2  considerations continue. We move to   the next group, on uprating assistance for  inflation. Amendment 6— You are having a   bad day when you get things right and  the clerks are still checking on you. Amendment 6, in the name of Jeremy Balfour,  is the only amendment in the group. When I lodged my amendments, I confess that I  did not expect great success with many of them,   but I expected cross-party support for this  amendment because the Scottish Government has   been uprating assistance for inflation since  it has had powers over the benefits that are   run here in Scotland.

It has uprated  benefits for inflation appropriately. The reason for amendment 6 is to future proof  the bill for future Governments. There would   be mass outcry from this Parliament if the  UK Government did not uprate for inflation   benefits that it has control of every year. The  disability community and many others in society   would be outraged, so the same thing should be  done in Scotland. The benefits that are run in   Scotland should go up with inflation—that  seems a fair and appropriate thing to do. I appreciate that that comes with a cost, but if  assistance is not uprated for inflation, surely   that cost will be met by the disabled and  the most vulnerable in our society.

When   I lodged the amendment, I felt that  it was more of a technical amendment,   because it allows the Scottish Government to do  something that it has done previously and which   I hope it will do again in the next 14  to 15 months. The amendment future proofs   the uprating by future Governments  that might have a different view. The amendment is reasonable and proportionate,  and I hope that the committee will support it. I do not think that amendment 6 would  be completely unreasonable if Parliament   had full control over finance, which we  do not. All roads lead to Westminster,   as Wes Streeting said during  the election campaign. I am quite sure that the cabinet secretary  would wish to support the amendment in other   circumstances.

Of course, under her watch,  devolved benefits have increased by more   than inflation recently. However, we have to  recognise that the UK Treasury still holds the   purse strings. There have been some surprises  of late, and there might be more to come,   given that the Prime Minister has said  that things are only going to get worse. The reality is that the cabinet secretary  and I have no idea what future block grant   provision will look like. We would  be asking the Scottish Government   to ensure that everything rose by the rate  of inflation, not knowing whether we would   get the block grant required to be able to  do that. That is a simple fact. I point out   again that, as a supporter of the union, Mr  Balfour is quite happy for the UK Treasury to   hold those purse strings.

I am not, but, while we  live in that world, the amendment puts the cabinet   secretary and the Scottish Government  in an almost impossible position,   because they do not know what future financial  provision there will be from the UK Treasury. I will speak briefly in support of the  amendment. The principle is well established:   the principle of uprating UK benefits has  been established and the new Government   has committed to it. Organisations that support  people, particularly those in the disabled   community, expect uprating. On the basis of the  principle and intent, it is the right thing to do. As the committee is well aware, the  Social Security Act 2018 requires that   benefits for disability, carers, employment  injuries, funeral expenses and the Scottish   child payment are uprated annually in line  with inflation. However, as things stand,   that duty does not extend to best start grants,  best start foods and winter heating payments. In our most recent budget, the Scottish  Government uprated Social Security Scotland   payments by 6.7 per cent, including by  increasing our game-changing Scottish   child payment to £26.70 a week. We know that  those payments contribute to the Government’s   core mission of ending child poverty and  are helping to keep 100,000 children out   of poverty this year.

We also know that,  as prices soar in supermarkets, our annual   uprating of social security payments protects  the real value of pounds in people’s pockets. The committee will be aware that, since  the first Scottish uprating exercise in   2019, the Scottish Government has consistently  chosen to uprate payments that are subject   only to discretionary uprating. Twice, we have  also responded quickly to changing conditions   to increase benefits beyond inflation, as  measured by the September consumer prices index. The points that Kevin Stewart raised are correct.  Decisions to uprate impact on Scottish block grant   adjustments.

There is a slight difference  in that regard in comparison with some of   the other measures that we have  just discussed. As I mentioned,   in previous years we have uprated all benefits  by inflation. In fact, as Mr Stewart said,   we have gone further in some cases. However,  the financial cost to the Scottish Government   is heightened by the fact that the UK Government  is not legally obligated to uprate all benefits   annually and, under devolution, the funding for  uprating in Scotland through the block grant   adjustment fully covers only those payments  that have an equivalent in the rest of the   UK that are also statutorily uprated. Not all  benefits in the UK are uprated by inflation. Members will therefore appreciate that  Scotland’s pioneering approach to social   security has been possible only with  the bold decisions that we have taken   in our budget.

Against the backdrop of continued  Westminster austerity under the new UK Government,   I am determined that the Scottish  National Party Government does   whatever it can to provide further  support for families and households. I am pleased to say that the Scottish  Government intends to lodge an amendment   on uprating at stage 3. That will extend  the existing statutory uprating duty,   so it will apply to all the payments  that are provided for by the Social   Security Act 2018. That will mean that  the Government will deliver more money   for families who are in receipt of the  best start grant and best start foods,   and, of course, it will include our winter heating  benefits—a commitment that I am particularly eager   to confirm given the devastating decision by  the UK Government to cut winter fuel payments. Let me be very clear: the Parliament must not,  and should not, be continuously forced to mitigate   the worst of the excesses of Westminster  Government decisions.

That is the price that   we pay for the union. On the anniversary  of the nation’s independence referendum,   that decision simply amplifies the urgent need for  full control of economic powers, so that we can   build a future that invests in our communities  with the decisions that we make in Scotland. I am afraid that there are technical issues in  the drafting of Jeremy Balfour’s amendment 6, so   I cannot support it in its current form.

I  have made a commitment to lodge a Government   amendment that has the same intent, so I ask  Jeremy Balfour not to press his amendment. I welcome the cabinet secretary’s  commitment to lodge an amendment   at stage 3. I look forward to seeing it and  I hope that it will be as she has set out. If I may, I will make one quick remark. Rightly,  Mr Stewart and the cabinet secretary have talked   about the cost—and there is a cost. However,  we must also think of it as an investment in   some of our most vulnerable people. I would  find it very hard to imagine any Government   not wanting to invest in the most vulnerable in  our society by uprating assistance for inflation. Will Mr Balfour give way? No.

I think that there is a moral duty on a  Government to do that. I acknowledge that the   cabinet secretary and her predecessors have done  so, but I am seeking to ensure that that practice   continues into the future—and I think that the  Scottish Government is seeking to do that, too. I welcome the Scottish Government’s move and  I look forward to seeing the amendment that   it will lodge. On that basis,  I will not press amendment 6. Amendment 6, by agreement, withdrawn. Amendment 7 not moved. Group 8 is on discretionary housing payments:  military compensation. Amendment 8, in the name of   Jeremy Balfour,   is the only amendment in the group. The previous few groups of amendments have been  fairly politicised, but I think that this group   will be less so. I am grateful to Poppyscotland,  which reached out to suggest an appropriate   amendment on the effect of compensation on  discretionary housing payments. I look forward   to hearing what the cabinet secretary will say  about amendment 8. There is a principle that,   if a person is involved in a civil claim and  receives money from that, those funds will   not be included in discretionary  housing payment decisions.

However,   if someone has received military compensation,  that would be included. To me, that seems unfair   on those who have served our country. I look  forward to seeing how the cabinet secretary   will deal with the amendment,  which I feel is appropriate. The Scottish Government does not support amendment  8, which seeks to make local authorities disregard   military compensation as income when deciding  whether to provide a discretionary housing   payment. That is not because we think that  military compensation should be counted as   income in those circumstances, but because there  are potential issues with Mr Balfour’s amendment   and, in any case, we do not consider the bill  to be an appropriate place for the policy. Although the Government is keen to encourage  consistency across different parts of the country,   it is important to retain a level of discretion  that allows for applications to be assessed on   a case-by-case basis. Discretion is baked into  that design. That said, my officials will soon   be undertaking a review. Given that, in the  debates on other groups of amendments, Mr   Balfour has expressed concerns about timeframes,   I reassure him that that review is due  next month, so there is not too long to   wait.

Officials will undertake a review of the  statutory discretionary housing payment guidance,   which we consider to be a more appropriate  place for the policy than primary legislation. We have concerns that the amendment would leave  out recipients of other forms of compensation,   which we may, when we undertake the review,  also wish to include in addition to military   compensation. We are more than happy  to work broadly with all stakeholders,   including, of course, Poppyscotland and Mr  Balfour directly, to ensure that the intent   behind the amendment is integral to the work  that is undertaken as part of that review. I recommend that the committee does not support  the amendment if Mr Balfour presses it, not   because it is wrong in principle but because the  policy does not belong in primary legislation   and because we want to ensure that any  approach does not leave out other people   who may be awarded other types of compensation.

I welcome the cabinet secretary’s comments,  and I look forward to that consultation taking   place. I am grateful that she will include all  stakeholders in it. I absolutely acknowledge   that my amendment leaves out other potential  groups who might be affected by the issue,   but it was important to have the  debate here so that Poppyscotland and   other organisations are assured that  the process will happen in a timely   manner. I look forward to the new guidance  reflecting where we are today and, I hope,   protecting those who have served our country and  others who have had compensation given to them. On that basis, I seek to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 8, by agreement, withdrawn. Section 3—Repeal of section 52B of the 2018 Act Amendment 105 not moved. Section 3 agreed to. After section 3 Amendment 28 moved——and agreed to. Sections 4 to 6 agreed to. Section 7—New determination  of entitlement after error The next group is on new determination of  entitlement after error. Amendment 106,   in the name of Jeremy Balfour, is  grouped with amendments 107 to 115. This is a fairly technical group of amendments,  and I am grateful to CPAG and Citizens Advice   Scotland for the discussions about the issues.  Currently, Social Security Scotland does not   have the power to make a new determination while  waiting for an appeal to be heard.

For example,   if a client is waiting for a Scottish child  payment appeal but the Social Security Scotland   appeals officer has conceded that the decision  is incorrect and should have been changed at   redetermination, Social Security Scotland does  not have the power to make a new determination   and stop the appeal. Instead, it can only invite  the tribunal to award the Scottish child payment. That causes unnecessary stress relating to  the appeal for the individual and unnecessary   administration for Social Security Scotland  and the tribunals service. That happens more   frequently than we might expect. As I said in  my declaration of interests, I previously sat on   tribunals. Fairly frequently, a representative of  the DWP would come along and say, “I’ve looked at   the papers afresh and disagree with the original  decision,” and would then ask the tribunal to make   the decision that the claimant had wanted in  the first place.

Obviously, that wastes time,   energy and money, and, most important,  causes stress for the claimant. Section 7 introduces a duty for Social Security  Scotland to make a new determination but only   under three categories: where the First-tier  Tribunal for Scotland has not yet decided   the appeal; where it has been identified  that the original determination is less   generous than it should have been due  to an error; and where the individual   has consented to a new determination  being made. I welcome those provisions,   as they will allow individuals to access  their full entitlement without having to   wait for an appeal and will reduce unnecessary  stress and administration. However, the bill   would benefit from some modification,  and my amendments seek to do that. Proposed new section 49A to the Social Security  Act 2018 specifies that there has to have been   an “error” in the original determination. The  requirement for an error to be identified requires   the decision maker to look for something that is  legally wrong with the previous determination,   whereas there could simply be a different view  of the same facts. There are already examples   of that in case law. For example, in NB v Social  Security Scotland, the same points were awarded   at the determination and redetermination stages,  and those points were insufficient to award adult   disability payment.

Even though there did not  appear to be any new evidence available to Social   Security Scotland, its written submission to the  tribunal departed from the previous two decisions,   recommending that additional points be awarded  that were sufficient for ADP to be awarded at the   enhanced rate. That submission did not identify  an error in law with the previous decision;   it simply identified a different interpretation  of the evidence that had been presented. The policy intent is to allow  decision makers to make a more   favourable determination.

I suggest that  the requirement to identify an error inserts   an unnecessary and additional test that could  be applied in quite a restrictive way, despite   the intention that the definition of “error” is  quite broad. To remove that would be helpful. The Scottish Government supports Jeremy Balfour’s  amendments 109 to 111. We consider that the   definition of “error” in proposed new section  49A is very broad and that the bill as drafted   will allow a new determination to be made and  an appeal stopped in a wide range of scenarios,   including where a decision maker reaches a  different conclusion on the same facts. However,   I am content that amendments 109 to 111  as drafted meet the policy intention that   a decision maker should be able to make  a more favourable determination for the   client during an appeal.

On that basis, the  Scottish Government is happy to support those   amendments. We may lodge amendments at stage 3 to  make small technical changes to the provisions,   but I assure Mr Balfour that such  amendments would not alter the policy. The Scottish Government does not support amendment  112, which seeks to remove the definition of   “error” in the bill as far as it relates to  allowing Social Security Scotland to make a new   determination and an appeal to stop as a result.  Although we are supportive of that, and support Mr   Balfour’s other amendments that seek to remove the  need for error in the process, amendment 112 also   seeks to remove the need for any new  determination to be advantageous for the client. We believe that an important aspect of the process  is that a client be offered an advantageous   award only in order to stop an appeal. That has  been the intention behind the proposal since it   was first introduced through the bill, and it  remains an important aspect of the offer that   would be made to a client.

Removing it might  result in Social Security Scotland contacting   a client to offer them a lower award than that  which they were challenging in the first place. Therefore, the Government does not support  amendment 112, and I ask Jeremy Balfour not   to move it. However, if amendments 109 to  111 are agreed to, we will, at stage 3,   remove the unnecessary definition of  error that amendment 112 identifies.

The Scottish Government also cannot  support amendments 106 to 108 or 113   to 115, in the name of Jeremy Balfour. The  amendments seek to remove the requirement   for a client to request a redetermination of  the determination that stopped the appeal. Our focus is on getting the decisions right first  time. However, if a client disagrees with the   determination that stopped the appeal, a right  of redetermination provides the opportunity to   correct any mistakes at an early stage through an  independent rerun. Giving people redetermination   and appeal rights in that scenario gives  people the same range of challenge rights   that are given to people who challenge all other  determinations that are made under the 2018 act. Some clients might find a tribunal process  intimidating and stressful, and might prefer the   opportunity to have Social Security Scotland look  at their case again rather than having to appeal   to the tribunal.

In addition, not everyone who  has lodged an appeal will have had a previous   redetermination outcome. Some people might have  appealed because their redetermination was not   concluded by Social Security Scotland within the  timescale that is set out in the regulations. It should be noted that, even if the  Government agreed in principle with   the amendments, they would  not, as currently drafted,   achieve the intended purpose. Some references  to redeterminations have not been removed and,   therefore, the legislation  would not work properly. For those reasons, I urge the committee to support  Mr Balfour’s amendments 109 to 111 but not to   support amendments 106 to 108 or 112 to 115. I ask  Jeremy Balfour not to move the latter amendments. I call Mr Balfour to wind up and to  press or seek to withdraw amendment 106. I will keep this fairly brief.

I welcome the  Government’s approach to amendments 110 to 112,   and thank the cabinet secretary  for that. I look forward to her   redrafting of amendment 112 at stage 3, and I  am certainly happy to work with her on that.   I accept the cabinet secretary’s points about  amendments 106 to 108 and 113 to 115. I will   reflect on that, and I acknowledge that the  drafting was not as complete as it should be,   which is my fault. I will withdraw amendment  106 and see what happens at stage 3. Amendment 106, by agreement, withdrawn. Amendments 107 and 108 not moved. I call amendments 109 to 111,  in the name of Jeremy Balfour— Apologies, but can we not move  those amendments en bloc? I   do not want to move amendment 109,  but I want to move the others.

Okay. I call amendment 109— My apologies, convener, I cannot read my own  notes. I again bow to your superior knowledge. I am glad that I was so persuasive  from the chair, Mr Balfour. Amendments 109 to 111 moved——and agreed to. Amendments 112 to 115 not moved. Section 7, as amended, agreed to. Section 8—Appeal to First-tier  Tribunal against process decisions We move to a new section, on appeals to the  First-tier Tribunal against process decisions. I   call amendment 116, in the name of Jeremy Balfour,  which is grouped with amendments 117 to 125. These are technical but important  amendments in regard to how cases are   determined. Proposed new sections 61A and 61A  to the Social Security Act 2018, as drafted,   will mean that, if the First-tier Tribunal decides  that further information is required before an   application or a redetermination request  can be deemed to have been made correctly,   Social Security Scotland must first try to obtain  that information, and, if the information is not   obtained, it must make a decision to reject the  application or redetermination request and notify   the individual of their right to lodge a process  appeal to the First-tier Tribunal again. My   amendments would mean that, if the First-tier  Tribunal decided that further information was   required before the application or redetermination  request could be deemed to have been made   correctly, Social Security Scotland may seek that  information and, whether or not the information   is obtained, it must make a decision on  entitlement based on the information that it has.

I will give an example. An individual claimed  adult disability payment and submitted parts   1 and 2 of the form, but Social Security  Scotland could not verify the identification.   The First-tier Tribunal decided that more  information was required before his ID could   be verified. The individual was unable to  provide the information that was required,   so Social Security Scotland rejected his  claim again and advised him of his right   to make a process appeal again. The amendments  would introduce a right of appeal to the Upper   Tribunal for Scotland in process appeals, which  would allow the development of case law in this   area. Case law develops precedents about how  legislation should be interpreted and applied.   Developing case law on process appeals could  contribute to the continuous improvement of the   social security system, which is one of the  principles that is set out in the 2018 act.

Section 8 of the bill provides further clarity  for the First-tier Tribunal on how to respond to   process appeals, which suggests that the current  legislation is not clear. Further clarity might   be required, which would not become evident  until more process appeals were requested.   The Upper Tribunal could consider issues of  ambiguity and develop legally binding case law,   preventing the need for further amendment to the  primary legislation before this can be addressed. The Scottish Government cannot support amendments  118 to 125, in the name of Jeremy Balfour. The   amendments relate to process appeals at the  First-tier Tribunal. That is where clients can   challenge process decisions such as if Social  Security Scotland rejects an application or a   redetermination request as invalid if it was not  submitted in the correct form or was incomplete. The First-tier Tribunal can decide whether  a process decision made by Social Security   Scotland was right. In addition, it  can decide that more information is   needed to make an application or  a redetermination request valid,   and it can instruct Social Security Scotland  to seek that information from the client.

Process appeals only look at process  decisions. They do not cover the level   of an award or overall entitlement, which are  covered as part of redeterminations and appeals. Amendments 118 to 125 would mean that, following  a process appeal, Social Security Scotland would   have to make a determination of entitlement in  scenarios in which the tribunal has said that more   information is needed, regardless of whether that  additional information is provided by the client.   That is unfair, as clients who have made a process  appeal would be treated differently from clients   who have also submitted an invalid application  but who did not seek a process appeal. It could   also disadvantage anyone who received a decision  from the tribunal during a process appeal that   Social Security Scotland was correct to reject  their application or redetermination request.

In practical terms, if Scottish ministers  do not have the required information,   as set out in the 2018 act, they are not  in a position to make a determination of   entitlement. An example of that would  be a client not submitting part 2 of   an application for a disability benefit,  because part 2 of the application contains   information about a client’s needs and  eligibility for that disability benefit. The Government does not, therefore,  support amendments 118 to 125,   and I ask Mr Balfour not to press them. The Scottish Government does not support  amendments 116 and 117, which would allow   people to appeal a decision of the First-tier  Tribunal in the Upper Tribunal. We do not   consider the amendments necessary. Most  process appeals are based on the facts   of the appeal—for example, whether a client  has completed a benefit application correctly   or submitted a redetermination request on  time—while Upper Tribunal appeals can be   brought only on a point of law.

The number of  process appeals received to date is very small,   and my understanding is that, if required and  where appropriate, the First-tier Tribunal   may seek guidance from the Upper Tribunal in  circumstances in which a First-tier Tribunal   has to consider whether the appellant had a good  reason for requesting a redetermination late. As such, the Government does not support  amendments 116 and 117. I ask Mr Balfour   not to press amendment 116  and not to move amendment 117. I call Mr Balfour to wind up and to  press or seek to withdraw amendment 116.

With due respect to the cabinet secretary,  I disagree with her reasoning. I accept that   the First-tier Tribunal can seek guidance in  that regard, but that guidance is not binding.   It would be helpful if we in Scotland  could build up case law that would give   certainty to the First-tier  Tribunal in making decisions. I also come to a different view on  amendments 118 to 125. I press amendment 116.
.

As found on YouTube