Chamber and committees

I turn to Professor O’Hagan. You commented in a previous answer on the Government’s statement about trying to do more to protect disabled people, women and people who experience racism. The Government has stated that it feels that more work is needed in that space. I think you said that you felt that, yes, of course there is more work to be done on those treaties but that we have made progress as well. Can you capture some of that as an excuse for delay? What can be done in that space?

Thank you. I am conscious of the time, so I will bring in Dr Tickell.

That was comprehensive. Thank you.

Good morning. Perhaps quite neatly, we will move on to the Government’s reasons for not introducing the bill. I am keen to understand whether the witnesses find the reasons that have been given for that to be convincing or whether they think that other reasons were at play. With the previous panel, we heard some speculation around budgetary concerns, for example. With this panel, it would be useful to cover the Supreme Court’s UNCRC bill judgment. I will start with Alan Miller.

Would anyone else like to comment?

Does John Wilkes want to add anything on those two questions?

I am grateful, convener. The contributions of colleagues have been helpful. As Mr Balfour and others have alluded to, section 16 is a contentious section—in fact, from the evidence that we took from stakeholders, it is probably the most contentious section of the bill, and it is those stakeholders whom I am keen to put at the forefront of our consideration.

I recognise and understand the principle of desiring information for audit. It is important for understanding how the social security system operates, its impact, its inefficiencies and efficiencies, and the support that it rightly gives people. It is also important for identifying where there might be fraud and error—particularly fraud, which can have a criminal element. We should all be concerned about that.

I would not support Maggie Chapman’s approach of removing section 16 from the bill entirely, because I think that important work is being done in this space.

In relation to Mr Balfour’s amendment 10, I recognise the concerns that have been raised. The amendment is challenging, so perhaps we could do further work in consultation with the stakeholders I spoke about to understand how the system might work more efficiently. There are opportunities to look at co-designing regulation, which might give people more input than they would have over something that is in the bill.

I am grateful, convener. The contributions of colleagues have been helpful. As Mr Balfour and others have alluded to, section 16 is a contentious section—in fact, from the evidence that we took from stakeholders, it is probably the most contentious section of the bill, and it is those stakeholders whom I am keen to put at the forefront of our consideration.

I recognise and understand the principle of desiring information for audit. It is important for understanding how the social security system operates, its impact, its inefficiencies and efficiencies, and the support that it rightly gives people. It is also important for identifying where there might be fraud and error—particularly fraud, which can have a criminal element. We should all be concerned about that.

I would not support Maggie Chapman’s approach of removing section 16 from the bill entirely, because I think that important work is being done in this space.

In relation to Mr Balfour’s amendment 10, I recognise the concerns that have been raised. The amendment is challenging, so perhaps we could do further work in consultation with the stakeholders I spoke about to understand how the system might work more efficiently. There are opportunities to look at co-designing regulation, which might give people more input than they would have over something that is in the bill.

I acknowledge what Mr Doris has just said and what he outlined in his contribution. It is helpful to the point that I am trying to make, which is that, in relation to section 16, I would like to see further work to put on a statutory footing some of the measures that Mr Doris talked about. I say to Mr Balfour that removing part of section 16 by amendment and not replacing it with something else gives us an opportunity at stage 3 to consider what we might do to put some of those things on a statutory footing. That is why the issue is important—I want to put that on the record.

I am sure that the cabinet secretary will want to talk about some of this in her closing remarks, but perhaps we should think about how we could put different requirements, different forms of consequence and different forms of support on that statutory footing. That is why I have sympathy with Mr Balfour for seeking to take out part of section 16 so that we can return to it at stage 3.

The convener is asking for brevity. I could go on, but I will leave it there. I am very grateful.

We are supportive of the Government’s amendments in this group.

I will turn briefly to Mr Balfour’s two amendments. I recognise some of what the cabinet secretary said, particularly on amendment 126, around ensuring that there is flexibility in the system to appoint the right person to receive money on behalf of a child, and around not interfering or challenging the established processes.

I hear the cabinet secretary’s concern that family court situations might be played out within the social security system. We need to be very careful, and I am reassured by what she has said about the processes and procedures that will be in place.

On amendment 9—or do I mean amendment 126? I am getting my amendment numbers mixed up. In relation to third parties being appointed, I have some concerns around trying to understand exactly the views that have been expressed by the third sector. There has been a variety of views, and this debate has been helpful, but the further clarity that Mr Balfour is looking for from the cabinet secretary would be helpful to have prior to making our decision.