Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes.

As with all devolved benefits, a great deal of work has gone into working with carers to ensure that we provide the information that they require and that we get the application form right. As the committee will be aware, all the benefits can be applied for online, by telephone or by using paper forms. An important difference in Scotland is that people can also receive assistance from the local delivery service, which will assist people in their homes or in a community setting if they require additional help. The local delivery service is very important because it is embedded in local communities and will have connections to local carers groups and to those who provide advice in the community. The service can be a bridge to a young carers group, or any carers group, that allows people to come in and help directly.

There is a recognition that some communities do not necessarily recognise themselves as carers and perhaps do not have the same expectation that the state is there to support them. We are keen to work with different organisations to ensure that our information is provided in different languages, that we have easy-read formats and that, particularly through local delivery, we make that connection. It is fine to have everything available in local community languages, but it is about what we do with that and how we make sure that the information is there for people to read and that they are supported. That is the benefit of local delivery. It is not just about having the information available; it is about having links with the local community to encourage people.

I hope that that reassures the member about what we are trying to do on that aspect.

Although Mr Balfour’s first point is an issue not for me but for the committee, I note it and recognise it from my previous times at committee. I will leave that point for the committee to discuss, should it wish to do so.

I recognise that the aspect relating to education settings is important. In respect of all the points that Mr Balfour has raised in the debate, as I said earlier, we will look again at that aspect. I am not in a position at the moment to give a timetable for when that will be, but I recognise that that has come up in the committee’s evidence and that we need to look at it. I do not see it as one of the aspects that requires to be looked at in the long term after case transfer—I hope that that gives a rough timetable, without making promises that I cannot keep.

It is about not just consultation with stakeholders, but the requirement for us to look at what changes need to be made in the agency’s programme and processes and what would have to be done to ensure that the system can take care of any changes, should we bring them forward. As Mr Balfour is well aware, none of those things is simple and none of them—when it comes to a change in processing—can be done overnight. However, I hope that that reassures him that I intend to look at that in due course.

Forgive me if I picked Jeremy Balfour up wrongly, but I think that he said that they will no longer get support. My understanding is that those people do not get support under the current carers allowance, so we are not taking it away. I just want to be clear.

I recognise that we have had to look very carefully at the different types of education. Different types of support are already there for young people who are in non-advanced education—for example, the education maintenance allowance, which is not available elsewhere in the UK. Other types of support are also very important.

However, as I have said, I recognise that there are differing views on the issue and that there are concerns about the fact that, although we need to look at the age appropriateness of care, people may be in caring situations, as Mr Balfour was right to say, and we need to be careful not to leave people behind as we go ahead.

I hope that I have laid out the rationale for where we are with the regulations and for the Government’s absolute openness to continuing to work with stakeholders—in particular, in areas in which views and opinions differ on what Government should do. We need collectively to find a way through that.

We are happy to provide the information on the definition that Mr Doris has requested. We will need to make any definition very apparent and easy to understand for those who are applying, so that we encourage people—particularly those at the edges, and especially when something is a bit new, as is the case with eligibility for those in full-time advanced education. I recognise that we need to provide information to carers, in particular, through carer support organisations as we move through the process. That work will be on-going.

On the point about the young carer grant, I recognise that issue. I am sure that the committee is aware that, in essence, the eligibility, in terms of the age at which someone begins to be eligible for the carer support payment, matches the situation for young people who are in full-time education who can access universal credit.

Among all the income replacement benefits, the one that is devolved to the Scottish Parliament is the carer support payment, but there are others. There is sense, therefore, in having the eligibility for all income replacement benefits start at that age. However, I recognise the point that Mr Doris makes on eligibility for the young carer grant.

When we were putting in place the young carer grant, we were not at the same stage of policy development in looking at the carer support payment, just because we were doing those things in different years. As we progress with devolution, we need to ensure that there are no unintended consequences—no gaps or challenges for particular age groups or parts of society that arise from the incremental programme that we have.

We are keen to ensure that looking at that aspect is part of our on-going work of evaluating the carer support payment and the young carer grant. Indeed, there may be other issues around the young carer grant and the carer support payment that we need to look at in order to develop a system that has no unintended consequences.

Again, I acknowledge the evidence that was given to the committee on that last week. The Government will look at what we can do to support young carers.

I recognise that issue, particularly with regard to the young carer grant and the carer support payment. As I said, we are very keen to keep that under review, and we will work with stakeholders on it.

With regard to the aspects around young carers, I mentioned in a previous answer to Mr Balfour some of the support that is already available, but I will give some examples of the support that can be accessed. There is the education maintenance allowance, and households with 16 to 19-year-olds in non-advanced education can continue to get support from reserved benefits such as child benefit, universal credit and child tax credits. There is support out there.

As I said, the education maintenance allowance is available only in Scotland. That is an important aspect of the wider support for our young people that sits outside social security. Again, I stress that we need to look at the issues in the round as we continue to develop the system. We need to consider what sits in social security and what sits elsewhere, and what is still reserved, and we will continue to work to see whether anything more needs to be done in that area.

I hope that the committee is reassured that there is still support out there for young people who are in full-time school education.

Those who have been involved in discussions on social security will have heard my predecessors and me talk a lot about the importance of safe and secure transition. We are right to do that, because we recognise that these individuals, who might be in very difficult or vulnerable situations, are relying on payments. So, one of our first responsibilities is to ensure that we have a safe and secure transition. That is why case transfer is very important.

We must also ensure that we do not have a two-tier system in which the rules are different for those who are making new applications and those who are already in the system and are still waiting for case transfer. That is a very unfair situation to be in.

That situation means that we cannot deliver some of the changes that we would like to make as fast as people would like—I totally recognise that—but I think that, as we heard last week, many of the witnesses and stakeholders have stressed the overall importance of safe and secure transition.

The issue of overpayments is a really important one. There are still things that we can do to improve the situation and to minimise the risk of overpayments. That has been a long-standing concern about carers allowance, which sits within the Department for Work and Pensions.

I will give a few examples that might help the committee. One of the areas in which we are keen to do more than the DWP currently does is the averaging of earnings to provide carers with more stable support. Incomes can go up or down, so we want earnings to be averaged over a period. That will, I hope, make it less likely that people will find the eligibility criteria out of reach because of, for example, a bonus or overtime at a particular time. Averaging is very important.

We have built in a system of alerts that Social Security Scotland will use to get data from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to track carers’ earnings, and there will be a number of scheduled reviews of earnings for self-employed carers, to prevent there being as many overpayments.

One more example—this is an important area on which the committee took a lot of evidence last week—is the fact that we will pay the carer support payment four-weekly in arrears. That is different from the DWP’s payment of three weeks in arrears and one week in advance, which can sometimes make it difficult to make the analysis as tight as it needs to be under carers allowance.

We are still keeping to safe and secure transition, but those are some of the measures that we are looking at in relation to the carer support payment that, I hope, can still make a difference to people with regard to the risk of overpayments.

We are looking at options for introducing a formal right of appeal for the liability of overpayments. Carers can, of course, request a review of a decision on liability of overpayments, but that will be carried out by Social Security Scotland. I appreciate that stakeholders have raised concerns about the fact that there is no formal redetermination or appeal rights, as you said.

That is an issue that we need to look at not just in relation to the carer support payment but across all devolved benefits. The committee will be aware that we, as a Government, have consulted on overpayment liability. The committee will also be aware that we have said in the programme for government that there will be a social security amendment bill later this parliamentary year. Full details of how we will approach that will be in the bill.

I hope that that provides the committee with reassurance that we have already undertaken consultation on the issue, that we recognise that it is an issue and that the committee and the Parliament will have the opportunity to look at the proposed solutions once the bill is before Parliament.

Again, that cannot be done until after case transfer. I gave details earlier—for the sake of time, I will not go through them again—about how we are trying to get better at looking at average earnings. We are also looking at how, if someone goes over the income threshold, their award will be temporarily stopped and reinstated without application rather than suspended. That gives individuals more rights, and it is another issue that we are already looking at.

The earnings threshold for the carer support payment will have to align with that for the carers allowance until case transfer is complete, but we continue to look at the responses to the consultation that suggest future changes. The earnings threshold is, of course, very important. I apologise for repeating this, but it is an important point: everything will have to be done in the context of how affordable and sustainable improvements are within the Scottish budget, which is largely fixed.

The work on the minimum income guarantee is very important to the Government. It was very important within the programme for government, and yesterday I had the pleasure of attending the first meeting of that group since I got into post. I heard, for example, from people with direct lived experience in relation to the importance of the Government moving forward with a minimum income guarantee, so we are very keen to look at that.

The First Minister has asked that group to look at what can be done with carers. Of course, it is up to the group to decide its work plan, but I am pleased to say that that was passed yesterday, and there is a lot that could potentially be done within that.

I hope that the group’s final report, when it comes out, can give assistance not just to carers, but on a minimum income guarantee overall. I think, and the Government thinks, that a minimum income guarantee for carers, in particular, would greatly assist them, because we know that there are challenges in that area. We are very keen to look at that, but obviously the report and what is made of it are entirely for that group, which is independent of Government. The group has produced an interim report, but the ask around carers specifically came in after that report was published.