Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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.

Yes.

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.

There 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.

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.

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.

I am not aware of any concerns about levels of temporary accommodation and the impact that Mr Balfour suggests our work on rent caps will have. I am happy to liaise with Mr Harvie and Mr McLennan on that issue to see whether any further updates are required.

It is very important that we take action to support people in the private rented sector. Higher rents affect people not just in Scotland but throughout the UK, and it is important that we take the issue very seriously. We also have to take very seriously any impact that rents have on the size of the private rented sector and on landlords. That is why the Minister for Housing regularly meets private landlord representative bodies and others to ensure that he clearly hears any concerns or suggestions that they might have. I hope that we all have a shared interest and responsibility in providing support to those in the private rented sector in the context of exceptionally high rent level increases.

I am giving active consideration to that, but the member is quite right to point to the challenges. The current system is literally based on paper sitting in a large warehouse—even if we wanted to lift and shift Scottish cases from that paper-based system, it is not set up to enable us to do that. The system is untouched and quite archaic in the way in which it is currently administered, which is a real challenge.

The committee will be well aware of the costs of the devolution programme for social security and would be right to question me on them. Inevitably, there would be more cost involved in providing a benefit up here when we are not able in any way to lift and shift the information from a digital programme down south. Devolving the benefit presents us with great challenges, and we therefore need to be cognisant of the cost of that and what that would mean. That is why I am looking carefully at how it could be done. We need to look at the cost not just of the benefit but of the implementation. That can be approached in several ways, but, as I said, it would not be without cost.

I am giving consideration to the matter, but, at this point, I am unable to provide the committee with a date when any consultation would go live.

This is an important area, and the fact that it is a cross-cutting area of Government is demonstrated by how many ministers you have had along today—indeed, you could have had more ministers along, although I am not suggesting on behalf of other ministers that you should do that. [Laughter.] The point about how we ensure that we co-ordinate that work and facilitate its implementation is a serious one. It is also important that we ensure that we prioritise work on child poverty across Government.

I will give a couple of examples, and if Mr O’Kane would like further detail, I can provide it. We have a programme board at official level across Government, which looks at the key action points in “Best Start, Bright Futures: Tackling Child Poverty Delivery Plan 2022 to 2026”. That board reports regularly on implementation challenges and opportunities that arise to see what more can be done and when.

I will also chair a ministerial group across Government to ensure that ministers have oversight of that work, and our intention is for that to meet quarterly. That is on top of what the programme board is already looking at, in order to make sure that we work together. You would expect us to have regular discussions on key areas when we meet bilaterally and when we meet in Cabinet, but we are keen to have the ability to take a step back and have real-time discussions across ministerial portfolios.

We have a number of evaluation strategies that look at the impact of what is happening and provide further analysis of whether change in portfolios is required. Those are some of the aspects of the programme board. I hope that that gives Mr O’Kane a flavour of what is going on, but if he would like further detail, Julie Humphreys and I can furnish him with that.

We will absolutely not. Whether that should be done was never even considered when we looked to introduce the Scottish child payment, because it is an inherently unjust way of delivering a benefit. Members will know from their constituency mailbags that our constituents’ life circumstances can change in the blink of an eye. To suggest that we should use the benefit system to, in some way, punish people who have three, four or more children is deeply disappointing, particularly when we see the number of families who have more children that are in poverty. That is exactly why those families are one of our priority areas. We would never even consider that, given the impact that it has on families in Scotland.