Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have two quick questions. My question to Ian Bruce is similar to one that I put to the other panel. Looking at lessons learned from last year, do you think, from talking with the people you are involved with, that the money that came from the Scottish Government and the UK Government got down to the charities that were dealing with the most need on the ground? Did you hear any stories about funding being blocked by the larger charities or not getting to the people who were actually doing the work?

The issue of reserves and how they are held is an interesting one.

I would like to quickly address the theme of the future reform of how charities are regulated, as we have Martin Tyson here. The Government has announced that legislation to reform OSCR and its practice will be introduced this session. As someone who is a trustee of lots of small charities, the system seems to be heavy on paperwork. Martin Tyson, are you conscious that small charities often have to fill in the same amount of paperwork as the large charities? How do we get around that? Perhaps Paul Bradford and others could tell us what reforms they would like to see, from the charities’ perspective.

My final question is for Paul Bradley. As we come out of this pandemic—hopefully we will do so at some point—do you think that a lot of smaller and medium-sized charities will start merging? Will there be a redefining of the sector because of what has happened in the past two years or will the landscape look fairly similar three years from now?

That is helpful. I am very conscious of time, so I ask for brief answers to my next question. The issue of your organisations’ relationship with OSCR and the reform of charity law is likely to come up within the next five years. Are there changes that you would like to be made? Is the system overly bureaucratic, in relation to the number of forms that you have to fill in, or is it about right?

I have two questions. First, following up on that final point, Audit Scotland reported that recruiting people with clinical experience was a cause for particular concern and that the pandemic may have made that worse. Are you looking at different opportunities, such as working part time or even working through an agency, so that a person might do one day a week for you but continue working as a nurse or occupational therapist the rest of the time? Or is it just one model fits all?

Secondly, and this is probably a slightly longer question, the adult disability payment is coming in next year. We have seen the draft regulations. Whether the regulations are agreed to or altered will be a political decision made by the Parliament. If the Parliament decided that everybody should be transferred as is, and then decided to increase the mobility threshold from 20m to 50m and that came in next year, would the agency have the capacity to deliver that decision, or would you need more staff? If the regulations were not just approved but altered to give more people the opportunity to apply, could you deliver that? If you could not, by when would you need that parliamentary decision to be made, so that you could bring in more staff?

That is good to hear. You might want to answer my second question in writing rather than answer it today. It concerns something that occurred to me while I was listening to you.

One of the issues that was put to us when we were examining the carers allowance was that there may well be two people caring for a parent or for a child but that the benefit is delivered on a first-come, first-served basis, which is the same in relation to the Scottish child payment. Have you considered that you might end up with two people offering the same care but only one getting the benefit, because they applied before the other one? Has there been any evidence taken on that, has it been an issue and is it something that you and your officials have been looking at in any context at all? I appreciate that that is coming out of left field, so I am happy if you would rather take it away and respond in writing.

I will be brief, because I am conscious of the time. I once had a case where someone was due £1,000 and got £110,000 and never declared it. However, we will move on.

There is one thing that has been a difficulty for the DWP under the present system. Every year, people get their annual letter that says, in about paragraph 4, “If your circumstances have changed, you need to let us know.” I suspect that most people, including me, never read that line. However, people’s circumstances change and they need more or less benefit. I am not convinced by the use of one line in an annual letter. Will the new agency communicate more effectively, perhaps, with people who are being transferred from the personal independence payment and whose circumstances may get worse or better? How will that be communicated to them in perhaps a more enlightening way?

It would very helpful if we could get some kind of indication in writing.

I have two questions, the first of which is procedural. We have touched previously on the time that SCOSS gets to respond. It pointed out in its report that it had a restricted time to get the response done. Are you looking at giving it a longer period of time to consider the recommendations, so that the committee and the Parliament can take that into account?