Chamber and committees

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.

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.

Another 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.

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.

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.