Chamber and committees

That is very helpful, because I now realise that there is a very clear difference between reviews and redeterminations, which I was not aware of. Thank you for that, Mr Shaw.

If there is a review, is it unclear whether that will still progress to an appeal if that review is not successful for the individual? Is that one of the more substantive issues in relation to why redeterminations and reviews are different? I just want the committee to be clear on that point. I am sorry if I have not understood correctly, Mr Shaw, but I want to tease out the importance of a redetermination as opposed to a review.

It is always helpful to get a real-life example, because it makes the situation real rather than our just dealing with dusty legislation, if you like. Was that repayment figure requested by Social Security Scotland?

Given that Mr Shaw has set out priorities for using the greater flexibility in the bill and the provision for a stand-alone benefit, I will direct my question to him.

The Scottish child payment is not about providing more money; it is about providing greater flexibilities, which might require more money. Will you say a little bit more about the cliff edge, not just in relation to universal credit but in relation to better-off calculations for people? They might lose their entitlement to universal credit because they increase their hours of work or get into full-time employment. Does that mean a hard landing for some families, and is there a disincentive for some people to go into work because there is no taper or roll-on in relation to Scottish child payment levels as folk get employment or go into full-time employment?

—and there is an issue of whether a threshold would be in the bill or whether the bill would provide the power for an income threshold to be set at a later date, on the basis that secondary legislation could amend the income threshold, as appropriate. However, I am conscious that any agreed income threshold might be a bit arbitrary. There are other things that might be happening in an individual’s life that must also be taken into account. Are you wedded to an income threshold? If so, should that be in the bill? Might more meaningful guidance also be a way round that situation?

That is helpful. Thank you.

It is the legislative basis that we are scrutinising rather than the policy positions once that legislative basis has been changed, but that is very helpful.

This section of questioning is about where the liability for overpayments sits. The bill will bring in the potential for client representatives to be liable for overpayments. The intention of the provision on liability is that the person who benefits from an overpayment will be liable for it, regardless of whether that person is a representative of the claimant or the individual who has the right to the underlying claim in the first place. Has the Government got the balance right in its framing of the provision? Are there alternatives that the witnesses might want to suggest? Erica Young is twitching her head. Is that an indication that you wish to speak?

Okay. I think that I will be looking back over the Official Report and digesting that information. We will see what the Government says in response. I will move on.

Ms Young, your organisation spoke about an income threshold in relation to debt recovery. Provisions in the bill would require Social Security Scotland to look at the financial circumstances of each individual where liability has been determined, any appeals process has been exhausted and it is clear that there has been an overpayment. Why should there be an income threshold?

I appreciate your concerns.

Ms Young, you said that there are no fleshed-out criteria by which the ability to pay or what a reasonable rate would look like would be determined. One option could be to provide decent guidance on that, rather than to provide an income threshold. I suspect that Ms Young would still want an income threshold. However, I ask about guidance because income thresholds could change over time—

I found your exchange with Mr Simpson helpful, minister, because it reminded me of the complexity that sits in the existing scheme. There has to be complexity to it, because we have to protect the public purse and we have to recognise that bus operators are valued partners, but they are commercial operators that will seek to maximise the yield that they can get for their business. I am pleased that they have come to an agreement with the Government.

It is important that, on the one occasion when the cap was exceeded, there was realpolitik and the bus companies and the Government got round the table to agree a way forward that was reasonable not just for the public purse but for the bus companies.

I am reassured by the modelling work and the data, particularly on the older persons scheme, which has been going for some time now. The data is very precise. What happened previously was that, when new technology was put on all the buses across Scotland, we realised that not as many journeys were taking place as we first thought were taking place. The technology gave us exact data and allowed the Government to have a much better negotiating position with bus companies at that point.

We are in a good place in which bus companies are valued partners in the scheme and with balanced discussion taking place with sophisticated modelling work. I am sure that the committee would welcome a briefing on how that works, because it is complex. Not all members get that at the first time of asking, so I think that the committee would appreciate that.

Underpinning this are the hugely valuable concessionary schemes for older persons and younger people. This is a massive investment from the Government into the private sector for a publicly deliverable bus system. I will certainly support the motion.