Chamber and committees

Thanks, Colin. I will say a bit more. Consortium bids were welcome, but were not made. Two organisations with a presence in Scotland—Citizens Advice Scotland and Money Matters—made applications but, through the regulated procurement process and following an assessment under the appropriate law and criteria, VoiceAbility was assessed to have made the strongest bid and therefore was awarded the contract, as is appropriate.

We cannot speak on behalf of the City of Edinburgh Council when it comes to the choices that it will make—

That is absolutely the focus of the amending regulations. If the committee agrees to recommend approval of the instrument, the amended advocacy service standards will ensure that the quality of advocacy is appropriate and regulated, and that its independence is absolutely assured. That has been the case with the interim service, too.

When we considered the Social Security (Scotland) Bill in 2018, there was a determination and commitment to ensure that independent advocacy was available, and we are now delivering that. The advocacy will not be provided directly by anyone who works for the Scottish ministers, including staff of Social Security Scotland; it will be provided by people working for another organisation, VoiceAbility. The advocacy workers will support social security advocacy rights and needs, and they will work for and on behalf of the individual in a way that is as free from conflicts of interest as possible. That is all set out in the service standards.

It is important to emphasise that, under the terms of the award, VoiceAbility will deliver only advocacy and not advice. It is specifically contracted to deliver the advocacy commitments in the 2018 act, and to be there for clients when they need it.

The point about the difference between advocacy and advice is well made. Advocacy involves the provision of support that helps someone to express their rights, views and wishes and what they want to achieve, whereas advice involves imparting guidance or recommendations to someone with regard to a future action or decision. The focus of VoiceAbility’s service will be on advocacy when it comes to social security benefits that are delivered by Social Security Scotland.

I hope that today’s discussion has been helpful and that it is clear that the new service, along with the regulations under consideration, is another step towards delivering a social security system that works for people and which has fairness, dignity and respect at its heart.

I move,

That the Social Justice and Social Security Committee recommends that the Social Security (Advocacy Service Standards) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2021 [draft] be approved.

Motion agreed to.

There is more that we need to consider and do for carers, as we look to bring in Scottish carers assistance, but we also have to work within the fixed budget of the Scottish Parliament. It is important to consider the fact that, in order to deliver that, we are working within a budget that was set in the spring.

The questions that Mr Briggs has raised are important ones that we obviously considered in the award process. The VoiceAbility delivery model is built around home-based staff and an existing network of more than 100 accessible co-location venues in local communities across the country. VoiceAbility has already been engaged in such work, and it will continue to engage in it as it delivers the contract.

The organisation used that approach before Covid-19, so it was ahead of the game with its move to digital and accessibility in communities. That has allowed it to be flexible and responsive to fluctuating demand and to have a clear presence in all health boards at launch. As a result, the geographical presence that Mr Briggs rightly asked about will be there.

As you would expect, the organisation is very committed to creating that presence and working in collaboration with others. I look forward to seeing that happen, and I am sure that the committee, too, will look forward to engaging with it as it expands into Scotland from a strong position of delivering in the rest of the United Kingdom. With its Scottish base and bespoke training centre in Glasgow, the organisation will ensure that advocates and volunteers are equipped with the knowledge and skills that we have talked about to deliver the service to a high standard, as set out in the standards that we are discussing.

It is also important to point out that the organisation will scale up in line with demand. We do not necessarily know what the demand will be—in fact, we will see that only when the service is rolled out.

As far as I can recall, I made this point in my letter, but I should emphasise that there will be a working group that the service will engage with, which will include not only key stakeholders, who will be able to have an input to and to engage with VoiceAbility, but, crucially, people with lived experiences, to ensure that we have a connection between the new service and those who use it.

We are excited about what the organisation is going to do and how it will perform under the contract, and we look forward to working with it as it rolls things out. Of course, as I have emphasised to members, any such advocacy will be independent.

On the issue of costs, I do not have those figures just now, but I undertake to come back to the committee on that.

That is correct.

Improving support for carers was one of our first priorities with our new social security powers, and our carers allowance supplement, which was launched in September 2018, has increased carers allowance by 13 per cent. Since that launch, carers in Scotland who are continuously in receipt of carers allowance and carers allowance supplement will have received £2,270 more than carers in the rest of the UK. We have secured the resource—an important point—for a doubling of the December carers allowance supplement in this year’s budget. Therefore, we must focus the bill that we are considering today on ensuring that we get that increase to carers in December.

Amendment 3 would increase by £480.06 the amount of carers allowance supplement to be paid in December, which would more than triple the amount to be paid.

I appreciate Mr Balfour’s point in lodging the amendment, but it is not required.

The Scottish Commission on Social Security plays an important role in providing detailed scrutiny of draft social security regulations on which the advice of experts in social security is required. However, any decision to increase the amount of an existing benefit must be made in the context of the wider financial and non-financial support that is provided to the people who are entitled to the benefit and within the wider fiscal context and limits of our budget. Those decisions are best suited to the Parliament.

As the changes that can be made under any regulations that are laid under the new power that we seek to introduce are limited to increasing the level of the supplement for a specific period or periods, we do not consider that further scrutiny by the Scottish Commission on Social Security is necessary or appropriate. The application of the affirmative procedure in section 2 will allow members adequate opportunity to consider any regulations in draft form. I note that the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee’s stage 1 report on the bill supported that position.

Considering all those points, I do not support the amendment and urge Mr Balfour not to press it. If he does, I urge the committee not to support it.