Official Report 641KB pdf
Council Tax Reduction (Scotland) Amendment (No 2) Regulations 2023 (SSI 2023/197)
Our next item of business is consideration of a Scottish statutory instrument: the Council Tax Reduction (Scotland) Amendment (No 2) Regulations 2023. The instrument is subject to negative procedure and amends the Council Tax Reduction (Scotland) Regulations 2021 to increase the maximum amount that may be disregarded in respect of childcare costs for the recipients of universal credit when calculating their income for the purposes of the council tax reduction scheme.
It is an emergency instrument that came into force in June and it coincides with an increase in the childcare cost caps by the United Kingdom Government. No motions to annul have been laid. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee considered the instrument on 5 September and agreed to draw it to the attention of the Parliament on a reporting ground for failure to comply with laying requirements. The committee also noted that it was content with the explanation that the Scottish Government had provided for the breach of the laying requirements.
Do members have any comments?
I support the instrument. For clarity, it is worth putting on the record why we have the council tax reduction scheme. The scheme was abolished on a UK-wide basis by the UK Government in 2013. The Scottish Government moved at that point to bring in a Scotland-wide council tax reduction scheme. In that time, 455,000 households per year have benefited—so, in 2022, 455,000 households benefited from the Scottish council tax reduction scheme. On average, low-income households benefited by £750, which is a £3 billion investment in relation to low-income households in the past 10 years.
If the negative instrument, which has been brought forward speedily by the Scottish Government, protects that key investment in relation to low-income families, I absolutely support it.
No other members have comments. Bob Doris’s comments will be noted in the Official Report.
I invite the committee to agree that it does not wish to make any further recommendation in relation to the instrument. Are members content just to note the instrument?
Members indicated agreement.
Carer’s Assistance (Carer Support Payment) (Scotland) Regulations 2023 [Draft]
The next item of business is consideration of another statutory instrument: the Carer’s Assistance (Carer Support Payment) (Scotland) Regulations 2023. The instrument is laid under the affirmative procedure, which means that the Parliament must approve it before it comes into force.
At our previous committee meeting, we took evidence from Minority Ethnic Carers of People Project, Carers Scotland and Carers Trust Scotland on behalf of the Scottish young carers services alliance. We also heard from the Scottish Commission on Social Security.
Today, I welcome Shirley-Anne Somerville, Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice. I also welcome her officials Euan Geddes, policy official, carers allowance case transfer; Ross Grimley, lawyer, Scottish Government legal directorate; and Jane Sterry, policy lead for the carer support payment.
I will mention a few points about the format of the meeting before we start.
We do not, in fact, have any members online, so we can forget about that. We normally do.
We will move on. I invite the cabinet secretary to make an opening statement.
Good morning. As we all recognise, unpaid carers make an immense contribution to our society, but we also know that caring can be challenging for carers’ health and wellbeing and their ability to have a life of their own outside caring.
That is why improving support for unpaid carers is a priority for our social security powers. Despite our fixed budgets and limited powers of devolution, we have transformed social security provision in Scotland, delivering a system that is based on the principles of dignity, fairness and respect.
We launched the carers allowance supplement in 2018 to address the fact that carers allowance was the lowest of all the working-age benefits, and we launched the young carers grant in 2019—two benefits that are unique to Scotland.
The draft regulations before the committee make provision for the carer support payment, which is the 14th benefit provided by Social Security Scotland, replacing carers allowance in Scotland. We have engaged extensively with carers, support organisations and the wider public to design the carer support payment so that it meets the needs of the people who will use it. I am grateful to everyone who contributed their views and to the members of our carers benefits advisory group and the former disability and carers benefits expert advisory group, in particular.
The regulations will remove barriers by extending entitlement to many carers in full-time education who are currently unable to get carers allowance. Once our new benefit is available nationally, it will benefit up to 1,500 more carers. From its launch, the carer support payment will also provide an improved service and signposting, which are designed to help carers to access wider support in social security and beyond.
Carers allowance is the most complex benefit that we have replaced in terms of its links with wider support, particularly the benefits that remain reserved to the UK Government. I am grateful to officials from across the UK for all their hard work in getting the transition right.
The regulations make provision for an initial pilot scheme from November in Dundee city, Perth and Kinross and the Western Isles. As I set out in my letter to the committee, our intention is to extend the benefit to additional local authority areas from spring 2024 and that it will be available nationally from autumn 2024. That will allow us to test the important links with wider support and to deliver continuous improvements to our service. I look forward to coming back to the committee with further regulations in due course, to make provision for the wider roll-out of the benefit.
The regulations also provide for the transfer of the benefits of carers who are already in receipt of carers allowance without any need for them to re-apply, and they ensure that those who are in receipt of carers allowance and the carer support payment continue to get our carers allowance supplement in the same way during the roll-out and transfer periods.
As soon as is practicable after case transfer is complete, we will start to make further improvements, initially by incorporating the carers allowance supplement into carer support payments, so that carers get their extra payments more regularly; extending support when a carer loses the person they care for; and providing extra support for carers with multiple caring roles—a carers additional person payment.
I extend my thanks to the Scottish Commission on Social Security for its formal scrutiny of the draft regulations earlier this year. Its recommendations have been accepted and have strengthened the detail of the regulations that are before us today.
I am grateful for the opportunity to assist the committee in its consideration of the regulations, and I am happy to provide any additional information that the committee might require.
Thank you, cabinet secretary. Our questions will be directed to you, but you are welcome to invite any of your officials to respond. Jeremy Balfour is first, with questions on carers in education.
Good morning to you and your team, cabinet secretary. It is always good to have you at committee. You might have seen that, last week, witnesses refuted the Scottish Government’s arguments for excluding 16 to 19-year-old carers who are in full-time non-advanced education from claiming CSP. What were the evidence and rationale for that decision?
I listened very carefully to what was said, because we want to support carers of all ages. Our completion of the regulations that are before the committee was based on our previous consultation work. For example, the concerns that the disability and carers benefits expert advisory group fed back stressed the importance of ensuring that financial support does not inadvertently lead to some young carers finding themselves in unsuitable caring roles. In addition, when we consulted on the young carers grant, similar concerns were raised with us about young carers having age-appropriate caring roles. The national carers strategy, too, looks carefully at the fact that caring can be a very positive experience for young people but can also put pressure on them.
I hope that that has explained where our rationale and thinking have come from, but I have listened carefully to what was said last week and to the fact that the issue has been raised. The Government is very happy to continue to work with carers organisations to see whether further evidence can be collected and work done with them to test that out more. Obviously, that will not happen in time for the going through of the regulations, but I hope that the committee will be reassured that I take it seriously and that we are keen to work with stakeholders to make sure of things. Some are concerned about our putting that in place, but others are concerned that we might not do so, and we need to find a way through that. I am keen to work with stakeholders on that and to go into more detail about the concerns that they raised last week.
I will follow that up with two brief supplementary questions. You are absolutely right to say that not all caring is necessarily age appropriate. However, people are where they are and, sadly, some people’s only choice is to use a son, daughter or sibling to help, because there is no one else to do it. I accept that we do not want to push people into caring, but sometimes they are pushed into it yet will no longer get any financial assistance.
In addition, are we not making a distinction between different types of education? We are saying that, if they are in one form of education, they can have money but, if they are in another, they cannot. I am concerned that we are making a false comparison between different types of education rather than recognising that, whatever way people go, further education is important.
Forgive me if I picked Jeremy Balfour up wrongly, but I think that he said that they will no longer get support. My understanding is that those people do not get support under the current carers allowance, so we are not taking it away. I just want to be clear.
I recognise that we have had to look very carefully at the different types of education. Different types of support are already there for young people who are in non-advanced education—for example, the education maintenance allowance, which is not available elsewhere in the UK. Other types of support are also very important.
However, as I have said, I recognise that there are differing views on the issue and that there are concerns about the fact that, although we need to look at the age appropriateness of care, people may be in caring situations, as Mr Balfour was right to say, and we need to be careful not to leave people behind as we go ahead.
I hope that I have laid out the rationale for where we are with the regulations and for the Government’s absolute openness to continuing to work with stakeholders—in particular, in areas in which views and opinions differ on what Government should do. We need collectively to find a way through that.
This is not my substantive question, cabinet secretary, but the committee would find it helpful if you could get back to us with a clearer definition of full-time non-advanced—as opposed to advanced—education. I have read some definitions—not Government definitions, but standard definitions that are out there—and I sometimes struggle for clarity on what counts or does not count as advanced, particularly in the college sector.
It is encouraging that the Scottish Government is not closed off to amending the regulations through looking at the matter again. That is welcome, although it is not for the current regulations. If you do not do that in the short term—we appreciate that you cannot—will you prioritise, for instance, extending the young carer grant to 19-year-olds? There is definitely a gap that is created, and the young carer grant could be another route by which to close that gap.
09:15
We are happy to provide the information on the definition that Mr Doris has requested. We will need to make any definition very apparent and easy to understand for those who are applying, so that we encourage people—particularly those at the edges, and especially when something is a bit new, as is the case with eligibility for those in full-time advanced education. I recognise that we need to provide information to carers, in particular, through carer support organisations as we move through the process. That work will be on-going.
On the point about the young carer grant, I recognise that issue. I am sure that the committee is aware that, in essence, the eligibility, in terms of the age at which someone begins to be eligible for the carer support payment, matches the situation for young people who are in full-time education who can access universal credit.
Among all the income replacement benefits, the one that is devolved to the Scottish Parliament is the carer support payment, but there are others. There is sense, therefore, in having the eligibility for all income replacement benefits start at that age. However, I recognise the point that Mr Doris makes on eligibility for the young carer grant.
When we were putting in place the young carer grant, we were not at the same stage of policy development in looking at the carer support payment, just because we were doing those things in different years. As we progress with devolution, we need to ensure that there are no unintended consequences—no gaps or challenges for particular age groups or parts of society that arise from the incremental programme that we have.
We are keen to ensure that looking at that aspect is part of our on-going work of evaluating the carer support payment and the young carer grant. Indeed, there may be other issues around the young carer grant and the carer support payment that we need to look at in order to develop a system that has no unintended consequences.
Again, I acknowledge the evidence that was given to the committee on that last week. The Government will look at what we can do to support young carers.
That is helpful. I think that we have a position whereby the Scottish Government would be happy to look again, without making any specific commitments, at non-advanced full-time education and at extending the young carer grant, as complex and challenging as that might be. Obviously, however, nothing is going to happen in short order in that regard.
How would you respond to that, cabinet secretary? There is still a group of young carers who will potentially miss out while others benefit. What support is available for that group?
I recognise that issue, particularly with regard to the young carer grant and the carer support payment. As I said, we are very keen to keep that under review, and we will work with stakeholders on it.
With regard to the aspects around young carers, I mentioned in a previous answer to Mr Balfour some of the support that is already available, but I will give some examples of the support that can be accessed. There is the education maintenance allowance, and households with 16 to 19-year-olds in non-advanced education can continue to get support from reserved benefits such as child benefit, universal credit and child tax credits. There is support out there.
As I said, the education maintenance allowance is available only in Scotland. That is an important aspect of the wider support for our young people that sits outside social security. Again, I stress that we need to look at the issues in the round as we continue to develop the system. We need to consider what sits in social security and what sits elsewhere, and what is still reserved, and we will continue to work to see whether anything more needs to be done in that area.
I hope that the committee is reassured that there is still support out there for young people who are in full-time school education.
Good morning to you, cabinet secretary, and to your officials.
When you were last before the committee, we both agreed that, despite its antiquity, the industrial injuries disablement benefit had been left unchanged by successive Westminster Governments. I think that we both also agree that the same can be said of the carers allowance, although there have been two main changes since it was created, in 1976, of which the most significant was allowing married women to make a claim. We face a big challenge that we need to get right if we are to provide a more progressive level of support for carers. Does the Scottish Government have the balance right between safe and secure transfer and the speed of change that is necessary to deliver a system that fully supports unpaid carers?
This week, I will again cover the issue of overpayments. Some of my colleagues might want to come in once I have concluded. Are the proposed changes sufficient to reduce the number of overpayments? What more can be done after safe and secure transfer?
Those who have been involved in discussions on social security will have heard my predecessors and me talk a lot about the importance of safe and secure transition. We are right to do that, because we recognise that these individuals, who might be in very difficult or vulnerable situations, are relying on payments. So, one of our first responsibilities is to ensure that we have a safe and secure transition. That is why case transfer is very important.
We must also ensure that we do not have a two-tier system in which the rules are different for those who are making new applications and those who are already in the system and are still waiting for case transfer. That is a very unfair situation to be in.
That situation means that we cannot deliver some of the changes that we would like to make as fast as people would like—I totally recognise that—but I think that, as we heard last week, many of the witnesses and stakeholders have stressed the overall importance of safe and secure transition.
The issue of overpayments is a really important one. There are still things that we can do to improve the situation and to minimise the risk of overpayments. That has been a long-standing concern about carers allowance, which sits within the Department for Work and Pensions.
I will give a few examples that might help the committee. One of the areas in which we are keen to do more than the DWP currently does is the averaging of earnings to provide carers with more stable support. Incomes can go up or down, so we want earnings to be averaged over a period. That will, I hope, make it less likely that people will find the eligibility criteria out of reach because of, for example, a bonus or overtime at a particular time. Averaging is very important.
We have built in a system of alerts that Social Security Scotland will use to get data from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to track carers’ earnings, and there will be a number of scheduled reviews of earnings for self-employed carers, to prevent there being as many overpayments.
One more example—this is an important area on which the committee took a lot of evidence last week—is the fact that we will pay the carer support payment four-weekly in arrears. That is different from the DWP’s payment of three weeks in arrears and one week in advance, which can sometimes make it difficult to make the analysis as tight as it needs to be under carers allowance.
We are still keeping to safe and secure transition, but those are some of the measures that we are looking at in relation to the carer support payment that, I hope, can still make a difference to people with regard to the risk of overpayments.
I believe in a human rights-based approach to social security and I am concerned that there is no right to appeal in relation to overpayment decisions. When will the Scottish Government change that, and will you accept that appeals are an important part of our social security system?
We are looking at options for introducing a formal right of appeal for the liability of overpayments. Carers can, of course, request a review of a decision on liability of overpayments, but that will be carried out by Social Security Scotland. I appreciate that stakeholders have raised concerns about the fact that there is no formal redetermination or appeal rights, as you said.
That is an issue that we need to look at not just in relation to the carer support payment but across all devolved benefits. The committee will be aware that we, as a Government, have consulted on overpayment liability. The committee will also be aware that we have said in the programme for government that there will be a social security amendment bill later this parliamentary year. Full details of how we will approach that will be in the bill.
I hope that that provides the committee with reassurance that we have already undertaken consultation on the issue, that we recognise that it is an issue and that the committee and the Parliament will have the opportunity to look at the proposed solutions once the bill is before Parliament.
Finally, you have charged the minimum income guarantee expert group with considering how the policy could assist unpaid carers. How do you envisage that rolling out?
The work on the minimum income guarantee is very important to the Government. It was very important within the programme for government, and yesterday I had the pleasure of attending the first meeting of that group since I got into post. I heard, for example, from people with direct lived experience in relation to the importance of the Government moving forward with a minimum income guarantee, so we are very keen to look at that.
The First Minister has asked that group to look at what can be done with carers. Of course, it is up to the group to decide its work plan, but I am pleased to say that that was passed yesterday, and there is a lot that could potentially be done within that.
I hope that the group’s final report, when it comes out, can give assistance not just to carers, but on a minimum income guarantee overall. I think, and the Government thinks, that a minimum income guarantee for carers, in particular, would greatly assist them, because we know that there are challenges in that area. We are very keen to look at that, but obviously the report and what is made of it are entirely for that group, which is independent of Government. The group has produced an interim report, but the ask around carers specifically came in after that report was published.
There are a few supplementaries. I will bring in Jeremy Balfour and then Bob Doris.
Let us go back to the appeal process. I may be wrong on this, cabinet secretary, so please correct me if I am. My understanding is that if someone puts in an application and is refused, they have no right of appeal. Will you be looking at that in respect of tidying up the system? That would seem, to me, unfair.
If I am wrong on that, which I think I may be, what is the right of appeal? There seemed to be a lack of clarity on that at our meeting last week.
I am happy to bring in Jane Sterry on that issue.
A standard determination of entitlement to carer support payment will carry the same redetermination and appeal rights as other benefits when any determination is made on whether somebody should be awarded the payment. The timescales for redeterminations are set out in the regulations and they mirror those for the devolved disability benefits, so carers will have 42 days from a decision to request a redetermination and the agency will have 56 days to carry that out.
Sorry—I meant an appeal to a tribunal.
It works in the same way as with devolved disability benefits. If, following a redetermination, the carer is not happy with the decision that has been made, they will have the right to request an appeal against that decision. Those timescales are set out in the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018, and they apply across all the devolved benefits in the same way.
That is really helpful. For clarification, which tribunal would that go to?
My understanding is that it would be the social security tribunal.
Okay. That is helpful.
I will bring in Bob Doris and then Roz McCall.
I will be brief. Cabinet secretary, when you talked about overpayments, you mentioned information and data from the DWP and the need for that to be shared in a timely manner.
It would be good to know a little bit more about how that is going—whether there are challenges there and whether those challenges involve being able to model what the level of overpayments may look like for this new Scottish benefit or simply getting information in real time on any additional income that an individual or household may have that would be taken into account. When I heard you talk about overpayments and information sharing with the DWP, I was keen to know just a little bit more about that.
Sure. I will bring in my officials if they think that I have missed out any key points on that. That highlights why the carer support payment is one of the most technically complex benefits to introduce, as there has to be continuous linking between DWP and HM Revenue and Customs information.
The way that we are doing the roll-out is important, and we have a pilot to test those links using a manageable number of cases. We will then move forward with the national roll-out, so that Social Security Scotland, the DWP and HMRC can all test that it is working effectively.
09:30Another reason that it is challenging is because there is modernisation work going on in the DWP around its systems for carers. That is really important work for it to be doing, but it means that we are trying to latch on to a system that is changing, which brings additional challenges—if I can put it like that—although officials are working very well together.
It is important that there is understanding of the amount of work involved, the complexity of it and the fact not only that it is a joint process to get a system set up and allow case transfer, but that it will be a continuing joint process between devolved and reserved parts of government.
That is working well. It is not simple, by any means, and I am sure that programme colleagues in the directorate will think that I have understated the level of complexity, but I hope that the committee appreciates the amount of work involved and the fact that the continuing engagement between all the levels is going well. I have no concerns about that at this point.
We will have to keep up that level of engagement as we move to systems going live and to testing them with data, but that is why we are taking a cautious approach to how we are rolling it out, by using pilots—just as we did with child and adult disability payments.
Good morning, everyone. I thank the cabinet secretary for the full and frank answers that she has given us. They are very helpful.
I was flicking through my notes and I noted that, last week, Judith Paterson stated that overpayments are “an inevitable consequence” of the process. I appreciate what you have said about overpayments in the answers that you have given so far, but it also came up at last week’s meeting that Social Security Scotland will not seek to recover overpayments of less than £65. What is the Scottish Government’s response to views that that amount should be set higher, and how will we monitor any possible overspends or budget concerns that might come from considering any variance on the amount of £65?
That is a very important point for the agency and Government to consider. Overpayments are an inevitability of the system as it stands, because it is exceptionally complex. In the future, the Government might wish to look at how we can simplify some of the processes, but that will not be done in the short term. We need to get the case transfer right and ensure that we have a system that delivers on some of the priorities that I have mentioned.
In the meantime, I recognise that, when there are overpayments, there is concern among stakeholders about the amount being set at £65, and I reassure the committee—this applies not only to carer support payments but to all the benefits that are dealt with—that the financial circumstances and personal circumstances of individuals, as far as they are known to the agency, are taken into account when the agency assesses overpayments. It is not done automatically and with no communication. That is an important part of the dignity, fairness and respect aspect that goes wider than the carer support payment.
The £65 level is in line with the DWP level, and it is based on the cost of overpayment recovery. In essence, the cost of recovering anything lower than that amount would outweigh the amount that would be recovered. As Social Security Scotland is a relatively new agency, we do not have the data in the agency to determine what the cost of recovery would be. The Government is therefore keen to keep that under review, to see whether changes should be made to the overall policy on payments, and the carer support payment will be included in that.
That will be monitored going forward.
Yes.
Thank you very much.
Cabinet secretary, can you give us a timetable for the completion of a transfer and the introduction of further changes to the carer support payment?
The agency agreement that we have with the DWP runs out in March 2025, and we have no concerns about that timeframe at the moment. The case transfer begins a few months after our pilot scheme, and the number of case transfers will grow incrementally. We will start small, test everything and ensure that there are no concerns about the transfer and nothing about it that makes it difficult for carers. All carers will have started the transfer journey by the end of 2024 and will have completed it by March 2025. We will start the transfer not long after the pilot scheme, we will begin to scale that up after testing the process, and all carers will have had notification of case transfer by the end of 2024.
On your discussions with Social Security Scotland, there have been some delays in other areas. Is it confident that it has enough staff to meet the target?
Social Security Scotland looks carefully at workforce aspects to ensure that the staff are in place. It is different for every benefit, but there are lessons to be learned from how the case transfer process works. The carer support payment is more complex, but that is exactly why we will start off with a small number of case transfers, test the process and ensure that the workforce assumptions are correct. In that way, the agency can flex if the models are incorrect for whatever reason or if we have got something out of kilter with regard to the workforce.
At this stage, we are very confident about staffing, but the way that we are managing the process means that the agency has the ability to flex, should it require to do so.
Last week, Paul Traynor suggested that addressing underlying entitlement was quite low down the priority list. What is the Scottish Government’s approach to the issue of underlying entitlement?
That is an important issue, which I recognise has been raised by carers. It comes under the catch-all of the fact that carers allowance and the carer support payment are income replacement benefits, as is the state pension. Therefore, we have a number of benefits that, in effect, seem to be there for the same purpose: income replacement. However, it is still important that people apply for the carer support payment—even if it is just to have the underlying entitlement—because it is the gateway to accessing other support, some of which is still reserved. We are keen to do more to encourage people who have underlying entitlement to apply so that they can access that other support.
There has been a call to extend the carer support payment to those who already receive some other income replacement benefits, but that would be a major change, and, as the committee is aware, no major change in social security comes without a requirement for a hefty investment.
I will give an example for context. Around 80,000 people are eligible for and get a carers allowance payment. Another 40,000 people have underlying entitlement. If the ask is that all those people get a carer support payment, significant investment would need to be undertaken. I recognise that there is that call, but such changes would need to be undertaken after case transfer and when the Government, the Parliament and stakeholders had all had a very open discussion about the affordability and sustainability of that, particularly when there are a number of calls to be made—which people are understandably making—after case transfer is complete.
I hope that that gives the context of the scale of what it would mean to make that change.
You have explained the context fully, but is the comment that addressing underlying entitlement is quite low down the priority list fair? Is that accurate?
We have tried to do what we can in the system while case transfer is on-going, and I have given examples of what we intend to do once case transfer is complete. There are priorities that relate to additional payments for caring for more than one person, for example. A number of calls have been made to the Government for carer support payment changes, and we have to look at those as we look at all aspects. We cannot make all those changes at once, we certainly cannot make them before case transfer, and the significant ones come with a significant cost attached. When the Government and the Parliament look at any changes, we have to look at how they can be funded.
I totally recognise that it is a priority for us to look at that and that there are calls for that, and I know that people are aware that such changes would not come without a significant cost. It is not a matter of their being a low priority; we simply need to do what we can in the short term and fulfil the priorities that we have laid out for after case transfer. We will then have to keep up a discussion about the other aspects—that issue is only one of them—that people would like us to bring in in addition to what the Government has already proposed.
The Scottish Government has consulted on increasing the earnings threshold. Why is that not one of the priority policies for change after safe and secure transfer?
Again, that cannot be done until after case transfer. I gave details earlier—for the sake of time, I will not go through them again—about how we are trying to get better at looking at average earnings. We are also looking at how, if someone goes over the income threshold, their award will be temporarily stopped and reinstated without application rather than suspended. That gives individuals more rights, and it is another issue that we are already looking at.
The earnings threshold for the carer support payment will have to align with that for the carers allowance until case transfer is complete, but we continue to look at the responses to the consultation that suggest future changes. The earnings threshold is, of course, very important. I apologise for repeating this, but it is an important point: everything will have to be done in the context of how affordable and sustainable improvements are within the Scottish budget, which is largely fixed.
Okay. Thank you.
I am going to go right back to the beginning, cabinet secretary. You alluded to trying to make the process as easy as possible, especially for young carers. How can we ensure that the process is available and clear to all carers and that carers have accessible information to help them to apply for the carer support payment, especially if English is not their first language? How can we ensure that the process is as smooth and simple as possible, to reduce the stress on carers when they are going through it? I am intrigued to know what your comments on that are.
As with all devolved benefits, a great deal of work has gone into working with carers to ensure that we provide the information that they require and that we get the application form right. As the committee will be aware, all the benefits can be applied for online, by telephone or by using paper forms. An important difference in Scotland is that people can also receive assistance from the local delivery service, which will assist people in their homes or in a community setting if they require additional help. The local delivery service is very important because it is embedded in local communities and will have connections to local carers groups and to those who provide advice in the community. The service can be a bridge to a young carers group, or any carers group, that allows people to come in and help directly.
09:45There is a recognition that some communities do not necessarily recognise themselves as carers and perhaps do not have the same expectation that the state is there to support them. We are keen to work with different organisations to ensure that our information is provided in different languages, that we have easy-read formats and that, particularly through local delivery, we make that connection. It is fine to have everything available in local community languages, but it is about what we do with that and how we make sure that the information is there for people to read and that they are supported. That is the benefit of local delivery. It is not just about having the information available; it is about having links with the local community to encourage people.
I hope that that reassures the member about what we are trying to do on that aspect.
That is a very full answer. Thank you.
The final question will be from me and is on wider support. Last week, we heard suggestions about things such as income maximisation and referral to carer support services. Will those be included? If so, when?
Again, that can be an important difference in how we deliver social security in Scotland. It is about recognising that an individual who comes forward and is eligible—in this case, for the carer support payment—could also potentially benefit from further knowledge of what other support is out there. Work has already been undertaken and, from launch, we will continue to finesse our approach on notifications in the award letter and online content signposting carers to what else is available out there. There will be links available as soft stops in the application, perhaps even to help carers who might not be entitled to the benefit but may require further support as a carer. We are also looking at having information on adult carer support plans, young carer statements and so on.
Signposting is very important, but we know that it is only one step and that more can be done. We are keen to further develop the approach as the agency continues its growth, recognising its important place in our communities. I mentioned local delivery, which is important, and, as I mentioned to Roz McCall, that service will have links to local groups.
We will continue to learn. We will continue the national stakeholder engagement with carers stakeholder groups and with the agency to continuously check whether we are getting it right and whether more can be done. That is an added ask of the agency that does not happen in the DWP—it is an additional ask of social security staff. Nevertheless, it is an important ask, because we need to see the carer as an individual rather than as an application form and consider what that individual needs as they move forward.
I hope that that explains some of what we can do online in relation to the application form, even for those people who are not entitled to the benefit, as well as what local delivery can do.
Thank you very much. That was very helpful.
Agenda item 4 is the formal consideration of motion S6M-10324, which calls on the committee to recommend approval of the Carer’s Assistance (Carer Support Payment) (Scotland) Regulations 2023. I invite the cabinet secretary to speak and to move the motion.
Motion moved,
That the Social Justice and Social Security Committee recommends that the Carer’s Assistance (Carer Support Payment) (Scotland) Regulations 2023 [draft] be approved.—[Shirley-Anne Somerville]
I invite contributions from members.
Obviously, we will support the regulations this morning. However, I have made the point on numerous occasions—and I will make it again—that I think that the process is slightly flawed. We take evidence from the cabinet secretary and then immediately have to vote on the regulations. As a Parliament, we have to look at the fact that, even if what the cabinet secretary has said today causes us concern, we have no option but to vote either for or against the regulations, and the Scottish Government has no time to reflect on the questions that we have asked. That is a procedural rather than a substantial issue.
There is still concern about some individuals, particularly in certain education settings, being left behind. In your answers, cabinet secretary, you said that there are varying views on the matter. The evidence that we have taken as a committee is that the payment should be made. I am grateful that you have said that you are going to look at the matter again, and I hope that we can look at it sooner rather than later. The danger, once we pass regulations as a Parliament, is that we then move on to the next thing and leave people behind. I hope that you will take what we and you have heard seriously and that some amended regulations can be brought forward in this parliamentary session. I am interested to know whether that is the timescale that you would be looking at, if you were to bring forward changes.
I also look forward to seeing the proposals in your bill, later this year, which will deal with the overpayment issue and the right of appeal. Again, we have taken evidence on that.
As someone who benefits from unpaid care, I think that we all recognise the massive role that unpaid carers play in our society. Often, those individuals do not necessarily want to do it but are put in a position whereby they have to do it because of their family situation—geographically or just because of how their family is made up. I welcome what we are doing here, as a Parliament, and I think that it will make a difference to individual lives. However, as you said, we do not want to leave anyone behind. I would welcome a mention—perhaps in your summing up—of the timescale that you are looking at for at least thinking about bringing in any changes.
Clearly, the regulations will put more money into the pockets of more unpaid carers in Scotland than ever before, and they will provide additional service and support. What is not to like about that? I warmly welcome the regulations. I think that they put unpaid carers in Scotland in the best supported group across the UK.
Of course, we have to go beyond that. I was encouraged to hear that the Scottish Government is already looking at what comes next, as well as the complex delivery of the carer support payment. That is encouraging. I also think that this committee has a partnership and scrutiny agenda with the Scottish Government. It is not a matter of our committee just approving the regulations and then moving on to the next thing; we should follow up the success of the pilot and the full roll-out and return to it as a committee.
I warmly welcome the measure. It is the right thing to do and it is a good news story for Scotland, but there is still so much more to do. I agree with Mr Balfour that we must not shirk scrutiny of it as the pilot rolls out and we embed the new payment in Scotland.
As members have no further comments or contributions, I invite the cabinet secretary to sum up and respond to the debate.
Although Mr Balfour’s first point is an issue not for me but for the committee, I note it and recognise it from my previous times at committee. I will leave that point for the committee to discuss, should it wish to do so.
I recognise that the aspect relating to education settings is important. In respect of all the points that Mr Balfour has raised in the debate, as I said earlier, we will look again at that aspect. I am not in a position at the moment to give a timetable for when that will be, but I recognise that that has come up in the committee’s evidence and that we need to look at it. I do not see it as one of the aspects that requires to be looked at in the long term after case transfer—I hope that that gives a rough timetable, without making promises that I cannot keep.
It is about not just consultation with stakeholders, but the requirement for us to look at what changes need to be made in the agency’s programme and processes and what would have to be done to ensure that the system can take care of any changes, should we bring them forward. As Mr Balfour is well aware, none of those things is simple and none of them—when it comes to a change in processing—can be done overnight. However, I hope that that reassures him that I intend to look at that in due course.
The question is, that motion S6M-10324, in the name of Shirley-Anne Somerville, be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
The committee will report on the outcome of the instrument in due course. I invite the committee to delegate authority to me, as convener, to approve a draft of the report for publication. Are members agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
I thank the cabinet secretary and her officials. I will briefly suspend the meeting to allow for the setting up of the next agenda item.
09:57 Meeting suspended.Air adhart
Pre-Budget Scrutiny 2024-25