Seòmar agus comataidhean

I welcome the cabinet secretary’s commitment to lodge an amendment at stage 3. I look forward to seeing it and I hope that it will be as she has set out.

If I may, I will make one quick remark. Rightly, Mr Stewart and the cabinet secretary have talked about the cost—and there is a cost. However, we must also think of it as an investment in some of our most vulnerable people. I would find it very hard to imagine any Government not wanting to invest in the most vulnerable in our society by uprating assistance for inflation.

No.

I think that there is a moral duty on a Government to do that. I acknowledge that the cabinet secretary and her predecessors have done so, but I am seeking to ensure that that practice continues into the future—and I think that the Scottish Government is seeking to do that, too.

I welcome the Scottish Government’s move and I look forward to seeing the amendment that it will lodge. On that basis, I will not press amendment 6.

Amendment 6, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 7 not moved.

Just for the avoidance of doubt, I remind members that I am in receipt of a higher rate of personal independence payment. I am also a former member of the tribunals service.

I accept the cabinet secretary’s point. However, we are at stage 2. If the amendment were to be agreed to today, I am sure that she could pick up a telephone or send an email to the new cabinet secretary down south to find out how they would react and, at stage 3, we could have the debate again.

Mr Doris and the cabinet secretary have picked up on the challenges of doing this through primary legislation rather than by regulations. As the deputy convener will know, however, the trouble with regulations is that you cannot vote against just one bit of them—you have to either accept them all or reject them all. Regulations might come forward from the Government in which 99 per cent is right, but 1 per cent is the key financial thing. I would not want to vote against somebody getting something except by amendment, which is why primary legislation is a better way of doing this.

I accept the cabinet secretary’s comments about budget, but that is about political choices. She often makes the point to me in the chamber that we have political choices. The money that the Scottish Government has would be much better spent on supporting carers than on some of the other projects that the Government seems to be pushing forward. For that reason, I will be moving amendment 3.

As for amendment 4, I accept what the cabinet secretary has said, and I will go away and reflect on it. For that reason, I will not be moving that amendment, but I reserve the right to see what happens at stage 3.

As I spent the summer considering possible amendments to the bill, this amendment was one that came forward as I was drafting. It happened before the announcement by the UK Government, and the announcement by the Scottish Government, in regard to winter heating payments.

The decision that the UK Government has made is very disappointing, and it affects many individuals. I understand why the Scottish Government made its decision, but that was also a disappointing announcement.

Amendment 5 does not seek to give all older people a kind of winter heating payment; it seeks to give such a payment to a specific vulnerable group in our society.

We all know that many older people spend a lot more time at home than other people do. We understand that older people often live in houses that do not have the best heating or insulation but are unable to move, for many different reasons. Amendment 5 says that those who are on attendance allowance—or on the new Scottish benefit that is equivalent to that—and so are over 65, and are on the high rate, should receive the winter heating payment. We already do that for children under 16 who are on a high rate of care, because the Parliament and the Government recognise that those children are often at home and so their heating costs are higher.

The amendment seems to me to offer a reasonable mitigation of where we are at the moment. It will give those who are at home the most the protection of some financial help in meeting their winter heating payments.

We all understand that next month heating prices are likely to go up across the UK. We recognise that many people in Scotland live in colder conditions than other people in the United Kingdom.

It is a political choice to say that we want to look after and protect the most vulnerable people in our society. To me, that seems to be the right way forward. We were right to pass legislation that allowed the Government and, ultimately, the Parliament to create new benefits. This new benefit would help people who are at home, who are often cold. It is not often that I agree with Richard Leonard, but, at last week’s meeting of the cross-party group on older people, age and ageing, he pointed out that he was concerned that we might go back to the conditions of the 1970s and 1980s, and that we will see people dying in their homes because they are cold. We need to mitigate that risk as much as we can. The people who are most likely to be affected are those with disabilities, who cannot move around as much as others.

My proposal is not part of a wish list or just something that we could do. We need to do it if we are to protect the most vulnerable people in our society.

I move amendment 5.

Section 2 introduces a new benefit called care experience assistance. Beyond that, we have no idea what we will be voting for. There is no substantial detail on how the benefit will work. What is it? Who will benefit from it? What timescales are involved? What process will take place? It seems slightly strange that we will be voting for a new benefit without having any of that detail.

We all want care experience assistance to be introduced. Yesterday afternoon, some of us attended an event at which we heard about the negative experiences that some people have when they are in care. However, I find it difficult to leave the timescale open-ended and let the Government go away and do whatever it wants. Regulations will come along at some point, but—I say this with due respect to the cabinet secretary—under the present Government, timescales seem to slip from time to time. I am seeking to make sure that care experience assistance comes about in a timely manner.

My amendment 2 seeks to provide that the regulations in question must be laid within 24 months of the bill receiving royal assent. That would give the Government plenty of time to engage with stakeholders, and it would give the committee and the Parliament as a whole plenty of time to scrutinise those regulations and to make sure that they were appropriate. It would also mean that the people who expect to receive such assistance would not be left not knowing when or if the new benefit will be introduced. None of us knows what will happen at the election in 14 or 15 months’ time. A different Government with completely different priorities could be elected, and care experience assistance could simply disappear off the map and never be introduced.

We all have the same policy intent as the cabinet secretary. Amendment 2 simply seeks to make the Government move slightly more quickly than it has done in the past and to give stakeholders and the committee reassurance that care experience assistance will be introduced.

I move amendment 1.

The next few proposed sections all relate to increasing the amount of money that the Scottish Government pays to the most vulnerable in society. As we all know, we are in a difficult financial situation, which is likely to continue for the foreseeable future. However, I do not think that that means that we stop looking after the most vulnerable in our society. As the deputy convener likes to say on numerous occasions at this committee, we all have political choices to make, and these are political choices that we must now make as a committee and, ultimately, as a Parliament.

We all recognise that carers in our society do an immense amount of work—work that goes unseen and which saves the taxpayer billions of pounds a year. The sacrifices made by those who care for loved ones, whether they be a husband or a wife, a child or another relative, are immense. Many of them have to change or give up their jobs, and many have to change their social life. Sadly, towards the end of the individual’s life, carers often see the pain that they are going through and the lack of fulfilment in their life. Many carers make that sacrifice because they love the person whom they are caring for, but that comes at a cost.

I am pleased that the Government has moved to some extent in that regard by extending the carer support payment post death. However, I think that we can go further. My amendment 3 seeks to extend the payment for six months, so that the person who has given so much can readjust to a whole new life—emotionally and physically—as well as readjust their financial situation with regard to what they want to do next. Many will have to seek training or upskill to get a job; some will have to do CVs and go for job interviews; others will simply need the time and space to grieve the loss of someone whom they have poured so much into.

I do not think it unreasonable for us as a society to acknowledge that and to extend the payment to six months; indeed, I have spoken to many carers organisations, and they say that one big change that they would look to make is for such an extension to be brought in. I appreciate that the cabinet secretary will say, rightly, that that will come at a cost, but I ask members to think of the cost to those people of what they have given the rest of us in society.

As for my amendment 4, the issue of the hard cliff edge has come up again and again. If a person simply steps over the line, they lose everything. That is true for the carer support payment and for other payments. I am not suggesting that this is an easy issue for us to deal with—I know that greater minds than mine have tried to look at it.

However, I think that, with the right wind and the right engagement with the sector, Government and lawyers, we can identify a tapering system that means that, if somebody’s financial situation changes only slightly, they get less of a payment but do not lose all of it. I think that that can be done fairly quickly through regulation. I would like the Government to commit to looking at a tapering process that would give a bit of flexibility to individuals who are caring for someone, so that they do not lose the whole benefit, just because of a small change in their circumstances.

I believe that, together, amendments 3 and 4 readdress where carers are at the moment. They will not address all the issues, but they would be a massive step forward. If we, as a Parliament, were to agree to them, it would send a very positive message to the many hundreds who care for people across Scotland.

I move amendment 3.

I clarify that we support amendment 27, in the cabinet secretary’s name.

When you become old and cynical like me—I have been on the committee for seven years now, I think—you might get used to hearing certain words. If I had a pound for every time I heard about “the intention” to do something, I would be happily in the Bahamas, by myself. I am concerned that things could slip. None of us knows what is around the corner, and other priorities can come forward for the Scottish Government.

Yesterday afternoon, some of us attended a meeting with board members of The Promise Scotland, who are critical of the slow progress that is being made. They want to see something happen.

I absolutely agree with Mr O’Kane that it is important for the system to be designed with the appropriate stakeholders in mind. I think that that can be done within two years—if future Governments want to make alterations, they can do so. However, I am still concerned that the Parliament does not have a great track record on delivering the promises that we make. I will therefore press amendment 1 and put that timescale to the Government, in the hope that we can all get to where we want to be within a reasonable time.

Yes, in real terms, Mr Stewart. Therefore, there has been more money to spend. That comes back to the point that we keep making, namely that these are political choices that each party has to make about how we spend the money.

This goes back to previous points, so I will not labour it, but what is the role for Social Security Scotland? Are we simply, as I think that Mr Stewart seems to be saying, going to provide a mirror image of what happens at DWP level, or are we going to do something that is best for the people whom we represent here in Scotland?

I will keep this fairly brief. I welcome the Government’s approach to amendments 110 to 112, and thank the cabinet secretary for that. I look forward to her redrafting of amendment 112 at stage 3, and I am certainly happy to work with her on that. I accept the cabinet secretary’s points about amendments 106 to 108 and 113 to 115. I will reflect on that, and I acknowledge that the drafting was not as complete as it should be, which is my fault. I will withdraw amendment 106 and see what happens at stage 3.

Amendment 106, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 107 and 108 not moved.