³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Good morning, Rhoda. The statement of reasons highlights the extensive consultation that was carried out in the previous session—both the official consultation and the Co-operative Party’s email campaign—with 93 per cent of respondents in favour of the proposal. Do you think that that majority support still reflects public opinion? If there has been a change, what do you think that it is? What would be the effect of a delay?

I echo what we have heard already, which is that the regulations are welcome. They will open up opportunities for advocacy for other people.

My final point is about training for the advocacy providers. Have you given thought to the sort of training that they might get in relation to disabled people or carers, for example? In the past—not here, but in other jurisdictions—some providers have not necessarily had the training or support required to give clients the full support that they need. Will the training take into account the range of conditions that the people who they will be supporting might have?

I appreciate the minister taking a second intervention. You are right to point out that it is based on a budget that was set in spring but, this week, the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee heard from organisations, including carers and women’s organisations, that the time between the programme for government and the budget process is a bit restrictive, in exactly the way that you have just described. You can set out your programme for government and all your aspirations, but you can therefore continually claim that you have to wait to make any material difference to people’s lives by putting the budget in place. Will you consider a way in which we could change that? In addition, that committee also heard that, although you have to work within the budget, you have to be sure that you are using the maximum available resource and targeting that at the people who need it the most. I would consider that those people are unpaid carers.

I thank Evelyn Tweed for taking another intervention. I take the point about planning, but I would hope that considerable planning is going on anyway as a result of the Government looking at introducing carers assistance in the future. I also ask the member to consider the planning that unpaid carers have to do given their financial circumstances and household bills. It is far easier for people to plan when they have certainties, rather than decisions being left to the discretion of ministers, who might at any point decide that they will not double the payment.

Will the member take an intervention?

I take the member’s point. You are right about the number of people who will miss out. Carers allowance supplement is available to only one in 10 people who provide unpaid care across Scotland, so it is correct to say that it does not meet the needs of all unpaid carers in Scotland. However, no element of the bill meets the needs of all unpaid carers in Scotland. Applying the uplift at this point recognises that the people who are captured by the bill—the people who will get the supplement—get a supplement that is representative of the amount of money that we, as a Parliament, this week agreed was a better reflection of the amount of money that people need to live on. We have an opportunity today to apply that uplift for unpaid carers, which is why it is important to use that mechanism.

The Government and almost all parties around the table—at least the ones in opposition—agreed that that uplift was essential, and I think that we need to do all that we can. You ask whether I feel that it is the best mechanism. It is not the best mechanism, because it is missing nine in 10 carers. However, it is the only mechanism that we have and, as the Government has said, it is the fastest mechanism that we have right now to put money in unpaid carers’ pockets. That is why I strongly support this amendment, and, if it is possible for me to do so, I will press the amendment.

Do you think that the current amount of support that unpaid carers get from the state, through either the supplement or carers allowance, is sufficient to keep them out of poverty?

I will support the regulations, convener, but I have a couple of questions.

I do not know whether it is just me, but it feels as though the regulations are really complex. To be honest, I do not think that we have had much time to get under the skin of them. Are we happy that enough data have been provided and that we understand who the winners and losers are here? I welcome the levelling of the reduction for people on legacy benefits and those on universal credit—it is absolutely the right thing to do—but do we really understand the differences here and who is or is not going to do okay out of this? That is my only concern about the regulations.

I have questions on the procurement process and on the points that have been made about funding. You said that a significant procurement process has been gone through. That is excellent and is what we would expect. I might have expected that an organisation that already has jurisdiction and works in Scotland would end up providing the service. Were there any applications from organisations that already deliver advocacy in Scotland? I am keen to know a bit about that, particularly given that you said that funding will be provided for the purpose of advocacy relating to Social Security Scotland benefits to one organisation only, and that that organisation is not yet based here.

The convener’s point about representation at tribunals and during assessments is important, because it is important that people have the option to take a person with whom they have a relationship as an advocate and to have a bit of choice in that. Notwithstanding the fact that funding only one agency to do that limits choice, will people still be able to go to their assessment with someone else as their advocate? Will it be the case that that advocate’s views will not be disregarded because they do not work for VoiceAbility?

Forgive me if this is the incorrect moment to say this, but amendment 3 is really good and gives us a strong opportunity to send a signal to carers who have worked day and night throughout the pandemic and before that. We must not forget that unpaid carers provided care long before the pandemic. However, over the past year in particular, they have been doing that under a lot of stress and strain, and many have been plunged into poverty.