Chamber and committees

I will be brief. Cabinet secretary, when you talked about overpayments, you mentioned information and data from the DWP and the need for that to be shared in a timely manner.

It would be good to know a little bit more about how that is going—whether there are challenges there and whether those challenges involve being able to model what the level of overpayments may look like for this new Scottish benefit or simply getting information in real time on any additional income that an individual or household may have that would be taken into account. When I heard you talk about overpayments and information sharing with the DWP, I was keen to know just a little bit more about that.

As Mr Balfour does, I like to put these things on the record.

Clearly, both of our witnesses will have a real insight into the impact on the voluntary sector of the cost of living crisis. I know that you could probably both talk at length about that, but could you put some of those challenges on the record as concisely as possible before I ask follow-up questions?

Clearly, the regulations will put more money into the pockets of more unpaid carers in Scotland than ever before, and they will provide additional service and support. What is not to like about that? I warmly welcome the regulations. I think that they put unpaid carers in Scotland in the best supported group across the UK.

Of course, we have to go beyond that. I was encouraged to hear that the Scottish Government is already looking at what comes next, as well as the complex delivery of the carer support payment. That is encouraging. I also think that this committee has a partnership and scrutiny agenda with the Scottish Government. It is not a matter of our committee just approving the regulations and then moving on to the next thing; we should follow up the success of the pilot and the full roll-out and return to it as a committee.

I warmly welcome the measure. It is the right thing to do and it is a good news story for Scotland, but there is still so much more to do. I agree with Mr Balfour that we must not shirk scrutiny of it as the pilot rolls out and we embed the new payment in Scotland.

So, it is an intention to fund but without the pound signs beside it saying how much the funding will be.

It is really important to draw our attention to that. You are talking not about unallocated funding, but about allocated funds that have not been received—is that right, Mr Bradley?

I am sorry for being so pernickety, but does the intention to fund, subject to final approval, tell an organisation how much it will get if the final approval is given? Does it have a budget line? That is the key thing in relation to the scrutiny. I am not trying to be awkward; I am trying to be clear.

I will ask the shorter question that I have, rather than the longer one.

Mr Bradley, in relation to the Verity house agreement, you said that you thought that, in 2010, there was a fund that the third sector was involved in. My memory of that is that it was the change fund for older people, which ran for four years and was worth £300 million. The key aspect of that was that decisions around directing that cash had to be signed off by the NHS, local authorities and the third sector.

In the light of the Verity house agreement’s implications in terms of the reduction in ring fencing, do you have any comments about what the role of the third sector should be as a consequence of that, given that, for four years from 2010, there was a funding relationship that involved a sign-off by the third sector?

We could be talking about different funds. I thought that that might be the one you were referring to.

Do I have time for another supplementary question, convener?

Thank you.

This is not my substantive question, cabinet secretary, but the committee would find it helpful if you could get back to us with a clearer definition of full-time non-advanced—as opposed to advanced—education. I have read some definitions—not Government definitions, but standard definitions that are out there—and I sometimes struggle for clarity on what counts or does not count as advanced, particularly in the college sector.

It is encouraging that the Scottish Government is not closed off to amending the regulations through looking at the matter again. That is welcome, although it is not for the current regulations. If you do not do that in the short term—we appreciate that you cannot—will you prioritise, for instance, extending the young carer grant to 19-year-olds? There is definitely a gap that is created, and the young carer grant could be another route by which to close that gap.