Seòmar agus comataidhean

We committed to the carers allowance supplement in the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018, so that is guaranteed every year and has been since 2018, when it was the first devolved benefit to be introduced. The additional amount, which we paid in 2020 and are seeking, through the bill, to pay again in December in the budgetary year 2021-22, will be guaranteed if the bill is passed.

We are creating the enabling power for that to be able to happen next year, should that be the will of the Parliament, but I do not think that it is prudent or correct, at this point, to set a position for future years. Of course, we will introduce Scottish carers assistance. Collectively, we will make decisions on what that will include and how it will be set.

We are creating an enabling power that will mean that, should there be a requirement and a desire from the Parliament to make a payment again in the next financial year, we have the mechanism to enable us to do that. There will, of course, be questions around resource and adequacy in our collective considerations around Scottish carers assistance.

Our analysis is based on our ability to deliver a payment and on the feedback that we had on the difference that it made last year, as well as on our engagement with stakeholders and carers organisations. We were told how much of an impact the payment made during the pandemic.

I appreciate the wider concerns about carers assistance and the level of provision for carers more generally. That is an important question for all of us as we work towards the introduction of Scottish carers assistance. However, we can feasibly deliver the supplement, both in practical terms through the mechanisms of Social Security Scotland, and within the budget that has already been set for this financial year. We have secured the resource that is necessary to make the payment.

I know that there are pressures on carers and family budgets. That is why the Government is taking a range of measures and actions to assist communities and families across Scotland with those pressures. The proposed payment is an important further contribution to support carers at this time, but I appreciate that some people will still face pressures on their finances. We are very aware of that.

Through the evaluation that we published in December 2020, we have a good understanding of the impact on carers of the carers allowance supplement, and we know that it makes a difference. The questions around what can be financed within this year are also part of the budgetary process. That is the question that differentiates this payment from future budget considerations, where we would be thinking as a Parliament about what we would set in the forthcoming budget, in order to make those payments in the year ahead. We have had to secure that resource within the current budget and we have been able to do that at the rate that we paid previously, which we know, through our evaluation, has made an impact.

Does Andrew Strong want to make any further points?

The passporting considerations that you have highlighted are some of the main barriers. We should be mindful that a key aspect of the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 was that carers allowance supplement was a temporary measure to provide assistance as quickly as we could while we continued to build up and deliver Scottish carers assistance. The fact that, at £67.60 a week, carers allowance is the lowest of all working-age benefits was part of our considerations around that and why we wanted to act.

Under the overlapping benefits rule, carers with an underlying entitlement will typically be in receipt of benefits that are paid at a higher rate. Carers can be in receipt of both the carers element of universal credit and carers allowance and, therefore, the carers allowance supplement. There is a helpful element there in extending eligibility for the coronavirus carers allowance supplement, which was what we did last year under the coronavirus legislation.

To include carers with underlying entitlement would have required significant resources from Social Security Scotland and social security staff in the Scottish Government, and engagement with the DWP to develop new processes. That is a real challenge and remains so, so it would have taken longer to deliver the payment and it would have needed to be supported by the DWP.

That is why the priority for Social Security Scotland was to make sure that people continued to apply for and receive existing benefits. Extending eligibility for existing benefits would have put additional pressure on those services when they were needed most, which is why we decided to make an additional payment through the carers allowance supplement to get the resource to people as quickly and expediently as possible.

That is an important question. I highlight the point that I made in my opening remarks that we acknowledge the expedited timetable and appreciate the engagement of all in that. Over the course of the past year, we have engaged with carers organisations on the positive effect of the additional payment in the Coronavirus (Scotland) (No 2) Act 2020. There was wide support for that payment. I engaged with carers organisations during the summer recess on those points, as did my officials.

The need to pass primary legislation to make the payment in early December—we want it to be then because we want people to have it in good time for the festive period—means that we have expedited the process. However, the bill is narrow in scope and is focused on enabling us to make the payment. We would of course normally want to engage in a longer legislative process but, given the timing of the election, the start of the new parliamentary session and the hard deadline of wanting to make the payment in early December, I think that a reasonable course has been taken.

Given that, under the enabling power, the regulations would be limited to increasing the level of the supplement for a specific period or periods, it was considered that the enhanced level of scrutiny that is provided by SCOSS is not necessary. The regulations would have a very narrow scope.