The deputy convener makes a fair point about the time that the committee needs to scrutinise the legislation.

Michael Marra touched on the industrial injuries disablement benefit. I gently say to him that, if he thinks that the Scottish Government has sat on its hands, I wonder what he thinks about consecutive UK Governments—Tory and Labour—that have not changed that benefit for literally decades upon decades. If they had done something, the records would not be sitting archived in a paper format in warehouses down south. That is one of the challenges that we are facing. From the consultation that the Scottish Government undertook, it came out that stakeholders wished us to do a full review of a benefit that had not been looked at for many a decade rather than to make small changes at this point. I am happy to carry out the work that reflects the consultation’s recommendations.

In my opening remarks, I said that the Parliament has already provided Social Security Scotland with a range of powers to recover benefit overpayments. We have not chosen to include powers to make deductions directly from bank accounts or to disqualify people from driving. I reflect on some of the evidence that the UK Government received when it looked at the issue. For example, concerns were raised by the Child Poverty Action Group, which said:

“Direct deduction orders do not come with sufficient safeguards, meaning more risk of hardship and unfairness for families. ... This measure risks dragging these families into further hardship and even destitution by giving the DWP more capacity to deduct from a bank account whatever income or capital they do have.”

Citizens Advice across Warwickshire raised specific concerns about the impact of taking away driving licences from those in rural or semi-rural areas, which “seems like unfair treatment.” Citizens Advice said:

“New powers allowing the DWP to directly recover debts from people’s bank accounts are likely to affect people in the most vulnerable circumstances.”

Because of those types of stakeholder engagement, we are not supportive of the UK Government’s proposals. However, as I have said, that does not mean that payments will not be recovered. That is a matter of the how, rather than the if. Members of the committees will receive correspondence from David Wallace and me on fraud and error. In due course, I will be happy to discuss the further details in those letters with committees, should they wish me to do so.