Chamber and committees

Dr Witcher, it is not often that a witness comes to the committee, identifies the problems, then, in the same response, gives the solution and says that everything has been delivered, so I thank you. I have one brief further question, although I may come back in later, depending on time.

According to the paper that we read ahead of today’s meeting, you are keen that the expertise that is captured in SCOSS is used proactively as well as reactively. Alongside scrutinising regulations and legislation and making recommendations for what should be tweaked, altered, made clearer and so on, I think that you were talking about SCOSS taking a much more proactive role. A pattern is emerging in the interaction between devolved and reserved social security matters, and there is a suggestion that a piece of research—a bit of proactive work in relation to that—would be helpful. Can SCOSS currently not do that because it is not able to do it or is not resourced to do it? You mentioned it in your paper. Could you say a wee bit about that, before colleagues come in with some other questions?

I know that Mr Mason wants to explore the finances underpinning some of this but, before we come to that, I want to check something. Cabinet secretary, you keep talking about the fact that, if the eligibility criteria do not change, the outcomes will not change in terms of who qualifies for and receives the existing benefit or the new Scottish benefit. We heard a lot about the judgments being based on expert opinion and the reasonableness test in the eligibility criteria.

We also heard that the IIAC has identified four conditions relating to long Covid that could potentially allow people to receive benefits, and that is caught up in the process. However, there is a difficulty with that, because the recommendations that politicians and processes rely on experts making are not always accepted—in this case, potentially, by the DWP on behalf of the UK Government. The reason I am putting that on the record is to ask you what parts of the eligibility criteria might need to be looked at again and changed. Should the eligibility criteria always be expert led?

Good morning and welcome to the 31st meeting in 2023 of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee. We have apologies from our convener, Collette Stevenson.

Agenda item 1 is a decision on taking business in private. Do members agree to take agenda item 4 in private?

Members indicated agreement.

I will ask about the voice of the worker, of lived experience and of occupational health in a moment, but I take it from your first answers that SCOSS will not be an appropriate vehicle for offering that kind of advice and that fundamental changes would have to be made to the structures of SCOSS to enable it to do so.

Welcome back. Our next item of business is an evidence session with Dr Sally Witcher, the former chair of the Scottish Commission on Social Security, commonly known as SCOSS. The purpose of this session is to gain further insight into what lessons for the Scottish social security system can be learned from what has happened up to now.

I warmly welcome Dr Witcher to the meeting. I thank her for accepting our invitation and I also put on record our thanks for all the work and effort that she has put into designing and supporting Scotland’s social security system up to now. Before we move to questions, I invite her to make an opening statement.

Thank you, cabinet secretary. You have made it very clear that the Government does not support the bill, but is it open to elements in it? Not supporting the bill is one thing, but being open minded about certain aspects of its contents is another. Are those issues being ruled out, or will they be considered as part of the Government’s wider consultation?

It is clear that the Scottish Government will have to think carefully about the kinds of knowledge and expertise that will be necessary to advise ministers on social security with regard to industrial disease and injury. Can you give us a little bit more information about the kind of knowledge and expertise that you think will be vital?

Thank you, cabinet secretary. We move to questions from Marie McNair.

Dr Witcher, that is very kind of you. I should reassure you that we are not looking for unpaid consultancy or expert advisory work.

I have one final financial question. It is not directly related to the bill but is about the financial exposure that is caused by demand-led budgeting within social security, which the new Scottish benefit will be subject to. You said that your officials are in contact with the IIAC and the DWP about long Covid in connection with current benefits. Does that include any modelling of the financial exposure for the Scottish Government over any agency agreements, if the DWP was to accept those? That is the first part of my question.

What horizon-scanning work is the Scottish Government doing? You can set that out in writing if you want to, cabinet secretary. Without pre-judging what any new eligibility might look like, what future financial exposure do you anticipate for the Scottish Government? I am mindful that, if Scotland does the right thing—as we absolutely should do—but the UK does not change anything, that will increase pressure on the Scottish budget. That is not directly connected to the financial memorandum to this bill, but there is definitely a correlation between the aspirations of this bill and the financial exposure of the Scottish budget and Scottish Government. Is there anything more that you can say about that?