Chamber and committees

Section 2 introduces a new benefit called care experience assistance. Beyond that, we have no idea what we will be voting for. There is no substantial detail on how the benefit will work. What is it? Who will benefit from it? What timescales are involved? What process will take place? It seems slightly strange that we will be voting for a new benefit without having any of that detail.

We all want care experience assistance to be introduced. Yesterday afternoon, some of us attended an event at which we heard about the negative experiences that some people have when they are in care. However, I find it difficult to leave the timescale open-ended and let the Government go away and do whatever it wants. Regulations will come along at some point, but—I say this with due respect to the cabinet secretary—under the present Government, timescales seem to slip from time to time. I am seeking to make sure that care experience assistance comes about in a timely manner.

My amendment 2 seeks to provide that the regulations in question must be laid within 24 months of the bill receiving royal assent. That would give the Government plenty of time to engage with stakeholders, and it would give the committee and the Parliament as a whole plenty of time to scrutinise those regulations and to make sure that they were appropriate. It would also mean that the people who expect to receive such assistance would not be left not knowing when or if the new benefit will be introduced. None of us knows what will happen at the election in 14 or 15 months’ time. A different Government with completely different priorities could be elected, and care experience assistance could simply disappear off the map and never be introduced.

We all have the same policy intent as the cabinet secretary. Amendment 2 simply seeks to make the Government move slightly more quickly than it has done in the past and to give stakeholders and the committee reassurance that care experience assistance will be introduced.

I move amendment 1.

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.

The cabinet secretary has raised quite a number of issues. At a high philosophical level, the issue—which I think that the cabinet secretary and others will come back to time and again—is about the divergence were we to do things differently in Scotland to the rest of the United Kingdom, and how the DWP would respond to it. However, at some point, we will have to see how that challenge works in practice.

I see no point in having a devolved social security system that simply mirrors what happens in the DWP all the way through—that seems to me an administrative cost for Scotland to be carrying. I accept that, because of Social Security Scotland, we can introduce new benefits, which we will come to in a moment. However, if we are not going to, at some point, change our approach from what happens in the DWP, why do we have Social Security Scotland here, as it is set up at the moment? At some point, this or a future Government will have to see how the DWP reacts to it.

I am pressing it hard, convener.

These are technical but important amendments in regard to how cases are determined. Proposed new sections 61A(2) and 61A(4) of the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018, as drafted, will mean that, if the First-tier Tribunal decides that further information is required before an application or a redetermination request can be deemed to have been made correctly, Social Security Scotland must first try to obtain that information, and, if the information is not obtained, it must make a decision to reject the application or redetermination request and notify the individual of their right to lodge a process appeal to the First-tier Tribunal again. My amendments would mean that, if the First-tier Tribunal decided that further information was required before the application or redetermination request could be deemed to have been made correctly, Social Security Scotland may seek that information and, whether or not the information is obtained, it must make a decision on entitlement based on the information that it has.

I will give an example. An individual claimed adult disability payment and submitted parts 1 and 2 of the form, but Social Security Scotland could not verify the identification. The First-tier Tribunal decided that more information was required before his ID could be verified. The individual was unable to provide the information that was required, so Social Security Scotland rejected his claim again and advised him of his right to make a process appeal again. The amendments would introduce a right of appeal to the Upper Tribunal for Scotland in process appeals, which would allow the development of case law in this area. Case law develops precedents about how legislation should be interpreted and applied. Developing case law on process appeals could contribute to the continuous improvement of the social security system, which is one of the principles that is set out in the 2018 act.

Section 8 of the bill provides further clarity for the First-tier Tribunal on how to respond to process appeals, which suggests that the current legislation is not clear. Further clarity might be required, which would not become evident until more process appeals were requested. The Upper Tribunal could consider issues of ambiguity and develop legally binding case law, preventing the need for further amendment to the primary legislation before this can be addressed.

I move amendment 116.