Chamber and committees

I have two quick supplementary questions.

First, I think that what we are trying to do with the transfer comes under the terminology of “safe and secure”, which is used a lot. Everybody who is on PIP will just transfer straight across. Are you then forecasting that, once people are transferred across, they will look to have their decision reviewed, and thus we will see people moving to a higher rate?

Secondly, is it your expectation that there are a substantial number of people out there who are not applying for PIP but who will apply for this different benefit? If so, why is that the case? Is it because they are holding off, because they think they have more chance with the new agency? Will it be a result of advertising and awareness-raising campaigns? How did you come to that conclusion—if, indeed, that was your conclusion?

Thank you for your answers so far. I want to discuss income maximisation, particularly in relation to the situation that we will have in Scotland with more benefits being run from Scotland and benefits also being run from Westminster. Even before the pandemic there were lots of figures out there about how much money was not being taken up because people were not applying for it. I am surprised by how many people still do not know that they are entitled to benefits or to different types of benefits. How do we maximise the benefit take-up by people who you are dealing with? I ask Jon Sparkes to respond first, and others on the panel can jump in if they want.

It is nice to see you back. I would like to pursue the differential that you foresee with the Scottish Government’s move from PIP to ADP. The regulations are similar for both benefits, so there will be no differential in that regard. Could you give me a bit more on why you think that it will cost more?

My second question might be outside your remit—if it is, I apologise. If take-up is higher, will the cost have to be met by the Scottish Government or can it go back to the UK Government and say, “Another 5,000 people have applied for this benefit. Can you give us the money for it?” How do the Governments work that out, whether it is a result of natural take-up or a deliberate policy decision?

I am slightly confused by the minister’s response. On the one hand, we are told that the Government is trying to evaluate and do all the work to produce reports, but on the other hand we are told that producing a report for Parliament would take resources away from other work. It slightly feels to me that the Government is trying not to be open to scrutiny from Parliament and is deciding on the scrutiny on its own terms. For that reason, I believe that amendments 4, 5, 8 and 9 are important. I press amendment 4.

I must push you on this, minister, because there is a difference between having a presence in a health board and having a presence on the day of a tribunal. Is there an absolute guarantee that if I need someone to advocate for me in Stornoway on a Tuesday morning, there will be enough people to cover that and provide that service?

I am talking about the Scottish Government funding.

I am sorry, convener. We have heard a member say that an ad hoc approach is not the way forward, because it means that carers cannot plan. Do you not agree that, for carers, it is much better to have certainty instead of ad hoc decisions made at the whim of a minister? Moreover, all benefits have to be paid and administered, which means that in every budget process we will have to work out a social security budget that will have to be paid for.

Will the member give way?

I have a few points in response to the debate.

I was very proud, back in May, to be elected to the Scottish Parliament and to have the powers that we have. That is what I am here to do: to use the powers of the Scottish Parliament. I disagree with Evelyn Tweed that the decision is for the Scottish Government. I think that the decision is for us as a Parliament. That is why we have been elected: to be the voice of those who are perhaps the most vulnerable in our society. I do believe not in dictatorship but in democracy and in parties playing their role in that. That point is really important.

On the other point that the minister made, the budget is not fixed. The Government has powers, if it wants them, to increase or decrease the budget. The budget that is set is not fixed; the budget that is available depends on decisions that are made by the Government and by the Parliament.

The nub of the issue is that we all want the new Scottish carers assistance to come in. However, as the minister has pointed out, we will start the process in December, with a consultation that will, rightly, take people’s views; the Government will then, rightly, respond to that consultation and the proposals will come after that. That will not happen overnight; it will not happen next year; and it will probably not happen the year after. I think that the provisional date is 2025. That leaves us with four years of uncertainty on whether Ben Macpherson and the cabinet secretary have successful negotiations with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy.

Marie McNair said that we do not want an ad hoc system. I absolutely agree. I do not want an ad hoc system. I want absolute certainty, and I want the Scottish Government to know, when it is planning its budget, that the payment will be made either once a year at double the rate, or twice a year, depending on which amendment members go for.

We all have choices to make. I am not an MP. I am not there to make choices at Westminster. I am here today, as are we all on this committee, to make choices on things that we can influence here in Scotland. That is why I press amendment 1.

I thank the minister for his reflections on my amendment. I agree with Marie McNair that there are capacity issues with regard to SCOSS that we, as a Parliament, will need to look at. In any case, the regulations that I am talking about are future ones. Perhaps the minister misunderstood me, as I am looking to ensure that any such regulations do not affect the December payment.

The minister has made some interesting points, which I would like to reflect on. With the committee’s permission, I will withdraw amendment 2 and see where we are at stage 3.

Amendment 2, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 2 agreed to.

Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.

Long title agreed to.