Chamber and committees

I welcome the cabinet secretary’s comments, and I look forward to that consultation taking place. I am grateful that she will include all stakeholders in it. I absolutely acknowledge that my amendment leaves out other potential groups who might be affected by the issue, but it was important to have the debate here so that Poppyscotland and other organisations are assured that the process will happen in a timely manner. I look forward to the new guidance reflecting where we are today and, I hope, protecting those who have served our country and others who have had compensation given to them.

On that basis, I seek to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 8, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 3—Repeal of section 52B of the 2018 Act

Amendment 105 not moved.

Section 3 agreed to.

After section 3

Amendment 28 moved—[Shirley-Anne Somerville]—and agreed to.

Sections 4 to 6 agreed to.

Section 7—New determination of entitlement after error

The next few proposed sections all relate to increasing the amount of money that the Scottish Government pays to the most vulnerable in society. As we all know, we are in a difficult financial situation, which is likely to continue for the foreseeable future. However, I do not think that that means that we stop looking after the most vulnerable in our society. As the deputy convener likes to say on numerous occasions at this committee, we all have political choices to make, and these are political choices that we must now make as a committee and, ultimately, as a Parliament.

We all recognise that carers in our society do an immense amount of work—work that goes unseen and which saves the taxpayer billions of pounds a year. The sacrifices made by those who care for loved ones, whether they be a husband or a wife, a child or another relative, are immense. Many of them have to change or give up their jobs, and many have to change their social life. Sadly, towards the end of the individual’s life, carers often see the pain that they are going through and the lack of fulfilment in their life. Many carers make that sacrifice because they love the person whom they are caring for, but that comes at a cost.

I am pleased that the Government has moved to some extent in that regard by extending the carer support payment post death. However, I think that we can go further. My amendment 3 seeks to extend the payment for six months, so that the person who has given so much can readjust to a whole new life—emotionally and physically—as well as readjust their financial situation with regard to what they want to do next. Many will have to seek training or upskill to get a job; some will have to do CVs and go for job interviews; others will simply need the time and space to grieve the loss of someone whom they have poured so much into.

I do not think it unreasonable for us as a society to acknowledge that and to extend the payment to six months; indeed, I have spoken to many carers organisations, and they say that one big change that they would look to make is for such an extension to be brought in. I appreciate that the cabinet secretary will say, rightly, that that will come at a cost, but I ask members to think of the cost to those people of what they have given the rest of us in society.

As for my amendment 4, the issue of the hard cliff edge has come up again and again. If a person simply steps over the line, they lose everything. That is true for the carer support payment and for other payments. I am not suggesting that this is an easy issue for us to deal with—I know that greater minds than mine have tried to look at it.

However, I think that, with the right wind and the right engagement with the sector, Government and lawyers, we can identify a tapering system that means that, if somebody’s financial situation changes only slightly, they get less of a payment but do not lose all of it. I think that that can be done fairly quickly through regulation. I would like the Government to commit to looking at a tapering process that would give a bit of flexibility to individuals who are caring for someone, so that they do not lose the whole benefit, just because of a small change in their circumstances.

I believe that, together, amendments 3 and 4 readdress where carers are at the moment. They will not address all the issues, but they would be a massive step forward. If we, as a Parliament, were to agree to them, it would send a very positive message to the many hundreds who care for people across Scotland.

I move amendment 3.

Good morning, cabinet secretary and colleagues. I confirm that we will support all the amendments in the name of the cabinet secretary in this group.

I thank the cabinet secretary for her engagement on my amendment 7 and for her helpful letter of 16 September. She has said that we all wish to make sure that the money follows the child and that those who are responsible for the child get the money. I welcome the information in the letter, but that information might not be broadly understood by the wider third sector. It would be helpful if the Government and Social Security Scotland could make that information better known so that parents and third sector organisations that advise parents are aware of it. The feedback that I have had from organisations is that they are not aware of it.

My understanding is that this is guidance rather than regulation, so perhaps the cabinet secretary could also deal with that point when closing the debate on this group. My only concern is that guidance can be changed by Social Security Scotland or the Scottish Government without the Parliament knowing that that is happening. We are trying to proof the bill not just for now but for future years and generations, so I wonder whether the committee and the Parliament could be kept up to date on any changes in that regard.

In the light of what the cabinet secretary has said, I will not move amendment 7.

This is a fairly technical group of amendments, and I am grateful to CPAG and Citizens Advice Scotland for the discussions about the issues. Currently, Social Security Scotland does not have the power to make a new determination while waiting for an appeal to be heard. For example, if a client is waiting for a Scottish child payment appeal but the Social Security Scotland appeals officer has conceded that the decision is incorrect and should have been changed at redetermination, Social Security Scotland does not have the power to make a new determination and stop the appeal. Instead, it can only invite the tribunal to award the Scottish child payment.

That causes unnecessary stress relating to the appeal for the individual and unnecessary administration for Social Security Scotland and the tribunals service. That happens more frequently than we might expect. As I said in my declaration of interests, I previously sat on tribunals. Fairly frequently, a representative of the DWP would come along and say, “I’ve looked at the papers afresh and disagree with the original decision,” and would then ask the tribunal to make the decision that the claimant had wanted in the first place. Obviously, that wastes time, energy and money, and, most important, causes stress for the claimant.

Section 7 introduces a duty for Social Security Scotland to make a new determination but only under three categories: where the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland has not yet decided the appeal; where it has been identified that the original determination is less generous than it should have been due to an error; and where the individual has consented to a new determination being made. I welcome those provisions, as they will allow individuals to access their full entitlement without having to wait for an appeal and will reduce unnecessary stress and administration. However, the bill would benefit from some modification, and my amendments seek to do that.

Proposed new section 49A(1)(b) to the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 specifies that there has to have been an “error” in the original determination. The requirement for an error to be identified requires the decision maker to look for something that is legally wrong with the previous determination, whereas there could simply be a different view of the same facts. There are already examples of that in case law. For example, in NB v Social Security Scotland, the same points were awarded at the determination and redetermination stages, and those points were insufficient to award adult disability payment. Even though there did not appear to be any new evidence available to Social Security Scotland, its written submission to the tribunal departed from the previous two decisions, recommending that additional points be awarded that were sufficient for ADP to be awarded at the enhanced rate. That submission did not identify an error in law with the previous decision; it simply identified a different interpretation of the evidence that had been presented.

The policy intent is to allow decision makers to make a more favourable determination. I suggest that the requirement to identify an error inserts an unnecessary and additional test that could be applied in quite a restrictive way, despite the intention that the definition of “error” is quite broad. To remove that would be helpful.

I move amendment 106.

The next few proposed sections all relate to increasing the amount of money that the Scottish Government pays to the most vulnerable in society. As we all know, we are in a difficult financial situation, which is likely to continue for the foreseeable future. However, I do not think that that means that we stop looking after the most vulnerable in our society. As the deputy convener likes to say on numerous occasions at this committee, we all have political choices to make, and these are political choices that we must now make as a committee and, ultimately, as a Parliament.

We all recognise that carers in our society do an immense amount of work—work that goes unseen and which saves the taxpayer billions of pounds a year. The sacrifices made by those who care for loved ones, whether they be a husband or a wife, a child or another relative, are immense. Many of them have to change or give up their jobs, and many have to change their social life. Sadly, towards the end of the individual’s life, carers often see the pain that they are going through and the lack of fulfilment in their life. Many carers make that sacrifice because they love the person whom they are caring for, but that comes at a cost.

I am pleased that the Government has moved to some extent in that regard by extending the carer support payment post death. However, I think that we can go further. My amendment 3 seeks to extend the payment for six months, so that the person who has given so much can readjust to a whole new life—emotionally and physically—as well as readjust their financial situation with regard to what they want to do next. Many will have to seek training or upskill to get a job; some will have to do CVs and go for job interviews; others will simply need the time and space to grieve the loss of someone whom they have poured so much into.

I do not think it unreasonable for us as a society to acknowledge that and to extend the payment to six months; indeed, I have spoken to many carers organisations, and they say that one big change that they would look to make is for such an extension to be brought in. I appreciate that the cabinet secretary will say, rightly, that that will come at a cost, but I ask members to think of the cost to those people of what they have given the rest of us in society.

As for my amendment 4, the issue of the hard cliff edge has come up again and again. If a person simply steps over the line, they lose everything. That is true for the carer support payment and for other payments. I am not suggesting that this is an easy issue for us to deal with—I know that greater minds than mine have tried to look at it.

However, I think that, with the right wind and the right engagement with the sector, Government and lawyers, we can identify a tapering system that means that, if somebody’s financial situation changes only slightly, they get less of a payment but do not lose all of it. I think that that can be done fairly quickly through regulation. I would like the Government to commit to looking at a tapering process that would give a bit of flexibility to individuals who are caring for someone, so that they do not lose the whole benefit, just because of a small change in their circumstances.

I believe that, together, amendments 3 and 4 readdress where carers are at the moment. They will not address all the issues, but they would be a massive step forward. If we, as a Parliament, were to agree to them, it would send a very positive message to the many hundreds who care for people across Scotland.

I move amendment 3.

I clarify that we support amendment 27, in the cabinet secretary’s name.

When you become old and cynical like me—I have been on the committee for seven years now, I think—you might get used to hearing certain words. If I had a pound for every time I heard about “the intention” to do something, I would be happily in the Bahamas, by myself. I am concerned that things could slip. None of us knows what is around the corner, and other priorities can come forward for the Scottish Government.

Yesterday afternoon, some of us attended a meeting with board members of The Promise Scotland, who are critical of the slow progress that is being made. They want to see something happen.

I absolutely agree with Mr O’Kane that it is important for the system to be designed with the appropriate stakeholders in mind. I think that that can be done within two years—if future Governments want to make alterations, they can do so. However, I am still concerned that the Parliament does not have a great track record on delivering the promises that we make. I will therefore press amendment 1 and put that timescale to the Government, in the hope that we can all get to where we want to be within a reasonable time.

Yes, in real terms, Mr Stewart. Therefore, there has been more money to spend. That comes back to the point that we keep making, namely that these are political choices that each party has to make about how we spend the money.

This goes back to previous points, so I will not labour it, but what is the role for Social Security Scotland? Are we simply, as I think that Mr Stewart seems to be saying, going to provide a mirror image of what happens at DWP level, or are we going to do something that is best for the people whom we represent here in Scotland?

I will keep this fairly brief. I welcome the Government’s approach to amendments 110 to 112, and thank the cabinet secretary for that. I look forward to her redrafting of amendment 112 at stage 3, and I am certainly happy to work with her on that. I accept the cabinet secretary’s points about amendments 106 to 108 and 113 to 115. I will reflect on that, and I acknowledge that the drafting was not as complete as it should be, which is my fault. I will withdraw amendment 106 and see what happens at stage 3.

Amendment 106, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 107 and 108 not moved.

This has been a helpful debate, and I think that we will come back to it again and again. I agree, for once, with the cabinet secretary. The UK Government’s decision to take away £160 million for the winter fuel payment is deeply disappointing. For your first big policy decision to attack some of the most vulnerable people in society is not a great way for any Government to start.

I point out to Mr Stewart that, under the previous Conservative Government, the block grant has gone up every year ahead of inflation—

My apologies, convener, I cannot read my own notes. I again bow to your superior knowledge.