Chamber and committees

If you are not reporting to Parliament, what reporting are you doing internally? If reporting to Parliament would remove resources, what reporting will take place? If you are reporting internally, why can that information not be shared with Parliament?

I reassure Marie McNair that, as someone who has drafted amendments on advocacy, I think that I have a reasonable understanding of the difference between advocacy services and advice and professional services.

I want to go back to a point that was made by my colleague Miles Briggs. What would happen if I lived in Orkney or Shetland and I was looking for an advocate to come to a tribunal with me? I presume that VoiceAbility has no presence in those areas. How will it provide services there or in, say, Stornoway or more rural Highland areas? How many people will it have working in those areas, given that there might be tribunals in Inverness and Stornoway on the same day? Can I be guaranteed that the advocacy that I need will be there on the day?

The amendment is welcome. It will open lots of avenues for everybody who offers advice to the most vulnerable, so I support it totally.

I have a few questions about how the advocacy service will develop. If I give you three questions, minister, I hope that I will not have to come back.

My first question relates to funding. Is the funding that will be paid to the service new? Other organisations already provide advocacy services that get Scottish Government money. Is it new money or will the money be taken from advocacy services that already operate?

Secondly, how will parents and others know about the service? How will it be advertised so that people will be able to make use of it?

Thirdly, how will the changes fit into providing advocacy services for tribunals? Citizens advice bureaux, advice shops and other organisations already do that. Will the VoiceAbility service be exclusive or will people still be able to choose to go to another organisation and get funding for it?

I understand where the member is coming from. The Parliament debated universal credit a couple of days ago, and I have no doubt that the debate will continue. However, I am slightly concerned that these changes will mean that one group will get £711.46, while other carers will get nothing. Rather than picking on one set of carers, is it not better to deal with all carers? Is this the right methodology?

We had an important debate earlier. Amendment 2 is a bit nerdy and more technical, but it is important that we debate it and come to a view on it.

The amendment relates to how the committee and the Parliament should consider any regulations that the Government introduces, in due course, under the bill. We heard from members and the minister that there is a power in the bill for the Government to introduce regulations to vary the amount of the supplement.

Regulations often end up at a committee at a late stage and do not get the proper scrutiny. That is no criticism of anyone; it is just how the system works. However, if we used the super-affirmative procedure, it would at least give us time to pause and examine any regulations properly. It would allow a third party a valuable tool for examining them as well and would ensure that they had no unforeseen consequences. It would also allow us a bit longer to consider them.

The super-affirmative procedure would provide a proper check. When the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 went through the Parliament, in the previous parliamentary session, we all—including the Government and the Parliament—were keen to get it right because many of the benefits affect vulnerable people. Using the super-affirmative procedure for any regulations that the Government introduced would allow us a bit more scrutiny. It would make the Government think about them a bit more quickly, because they would have to be produced more quickly and they would go through the proper scrutiny.

I will be interested to hear what the minister has to say on that.

I move amendment 2.

I will speak to my amendment 1. I also support Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 6.

For us, the proposal in amendment 1 represents the key issue in relation to the bill. It is welcome that the double payment will be made this year. I appreciate that the money is coming out of a budget that has already been set and that it will have to be found from that. However, we have seen many delays to the Scottish benefits that are being delivered by the Scottish ministers, and we need to get on and deliver them. I hope that the timescales that the Government has given will be met, even if they are not what we hoped for when we started on the journey. However, we have no guarantee that that will happen. None of us has a crystal ball and we do not know what is going to happen in the next few years. There could be further delays.

Amendment 1 seeks to create an increase through a one-off payment every year so that there is a double payment. We have not set a budget yet and I presume that budget negotiations are going on between ministers and the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy so that the payment can be budgeted for and put into next year’s budget. I appreciate that this involves more money, but I presume that the Scottish Government will pay all the benefits that we are already committed to. We are told that it has to come under a budgetary negotiation, but that is true of all benefits. The moneys for PIP, disability living allowance and attendance allowance all have to be provided.

As the minister is well aware, the service is demand led, so none of us can be sure about exactly how much the social security budget is going to be. We have seen the social security budget go up this year because of what has happened in the past 18 months, and that may also be true in future years. As benefits are taken up and the amounts increase, that will have to be met within the Scottish Government’s budget.

The proposal in amendment 1 is reasonable and it would give people some kind of guarantee that they were going to get money. As the minister pointed out forcefully in the chamber on Tuesday afternoon, these are political decisions. We have taken different views on the universal credit issue, but this is a decision that we can take as the Scottish Parliament. It is a political decision, and we can decide whether we want to take it. Amendment 1 proposes that we show that we value carers, not only through nice words but through a financial package.

If the Government and the Parliament want to be even more generous, we can support amendment 6, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, which would provide for two payments. I recognise the need for that, and in the current financial circumstances it is worth arguing for.

We have options to make a one-off payment until at least 2025 or to make two payments. I am interested to know the minister’s view on that. It is clear to me that it is a political choice. We often criticise other Governments for doing different things, but we have the power here in Scotland today to give a guarantee to carers. I hope that committee members will make the right political choice and send a clear message that we care about carers and want to support them financially.

I move amendment 1.

I intend to move amendment 4, and also amendments 5, 8 and 9 if Maggie Chapman has decided not to move them. The amendments in the group are helpful and I thank her for lodging them.

Amendment 4 would require the Scottish ministers to review the amount of carers allowance supplement once payment has been made, and to report to the Parliament. The amendment is helpful because it would allow the committee and the whole Parliament to review what was happening on an on-going basis. The report would also be required to cover Scottish ministers’ views on an increase to the young carer grant. I think that we all have aspirations for such an increase, even if it cannot happen at the moment. The amendment is helpful because it would keep the issue alive for us as a committee and for the Parliament and it would enable us to move forward.

Amendment 8 is a paving amendment for amendment 4.

Amendment 5 calls for a review of whether people who care for more than one person should get more money. In such cases, we make a one-off payment. The committee in the previous session grappled with and took evidence on how we deal with people who care for more than one person. I think that that will become a growing issue. People may have one elderly parent or two, and many families have two children who have a disability and need care, but we have never quite grasped that. Again, amendment 5 is helpful in keeping that issue alive.

Amendment 9 is a paving amendment for amendment 5.

I thank Maggie Chapman for lodging her amendments in the group and helping Parliament to have not only a wider review, but a continuing conversation on those issues.

I move amendment 4.

Your colleague mentioned the phrase “ad hoc”—

I thank Evelyn Tweed for taking an intervention. I absolutely agree that it must be planned. In December, we will have a planned budget, which will then be decided on. Both of the amendments in the group would give certainty about plans. It is not new money that is having to be found from a set budget—this is a new budget. What more planning needs to take place, given that we will have budget negotiations over the next few months?

Can I just seek clarification on my point? If I go to a tribunal for a hearing on my personal independence payment, which is going to be run by Social Security Scotland, and I am looking for an advocate to represent me, at the moment, I have the choice of advocating for myself or having a CAB, the advice shop in Edinburgh or other organisations across Scotland to do that. Are you saying that the only people who will be allowed to advocate at a tribunal will be from the organisation that you are paying for? Are we closing the door for other organisations to be able to provide a service of advice at tribunal? Is it an exclusive contract?