³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

We cannot speak on behalf of the City of Edinburgh Council when it comes to the choices that it will make—

That is absolutely the focus of the amending regulations. If the committee agrees to recommend approval of the instrument, the amended advocacy service standards will ensure that the quality of advocacy is appropriate and regulated, and that its independence is absolutely assured. That has been the case with the interim service, too.

When we considered the Social Security (Scotland) Bill in 2018, there was a determination and commitment to ensure that independent advocacy was available, and we are now delivering that. The advocacy will not be provided directly by anyone who works for the Scottish ministers, including staff of Social Security Scotland; it will be provided by people working for another organisation, VoiceAbility. The advocacy workers will support social security advocacy rights and needs, and they will work for and on behalf of the individual in a way that is as free from conflicts of interest as possible. That is all set out in the service standards.

It is important to emphasise that, under the terms of the award, VoiceAbility will deliver only advocacy and not advice. It is specifically contracted to deliver the advocacy commitments in the 2018 act, and to be there for clients when they need it.

The point about the difference between advocacy and advice is well made. Advocacy involves the provision of support that helps someone to express their rights, views and wishes and what they want to achieve, whereas advice involves imparting guidance or recommendations to someone with regard to a future action or decision. The focus of VoiceAbility’s service will be on advocacy when it comes to social security benefits that are delivered by Social Security Scotland.

I hope that today’s discussion has been helpful and that it is clear that the new service, along with the regulations under consideration, is another step towards delivering a social security system that works for people and which has fairness, dignity and respect at its heart.

I move,

That the Social Justice and Social Security Committee recommends that the Social Security (Advocacy Service Standards) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2021 [draft] be approved.

Motion agreed to.

There is more that we need to consider and do for carers, as we look to bring in Scottish carers assistance, but we also have to work within the fixed budget of the Scottish Parliament. It is important to consider the fact that, in order to deliver that, we are working within a budget that was set in the spring.

The questions that Mr Briggs has raised are important ones that we obviously considered in the award process. The VoiceAbility delivery model is built around home-based staff and an existing network of more than 100 accessible co-location venues in local communities across the country. VoiceAbility has already been engaged in such work, and it will continue to engage in it as it delivers the contract.

The organisation used that approach before Covid-19, so it was ahead of the game with its move to digital and accessibility in communities. That has allowed it to be flexible and responsive to fluctuating demand and to have a clear presence in all health boards at launch. As a result, the geographical presence that Mr Briggs rightly asked about will be there.

As you would expect, the organisation is very committed to creating that presence and working in collaboration with others. I look forward to seeing that happen, and I am sure that the committee, too, will look forward to engaging with it as it expands into Scotland from a strong position of delivering in the rest of the United Kingdom. With its Scottish base and bespoke training centre in Glasgow, the organisation will ensure that advocates and volunteers are equipped with the knowledge and skills that we have talked about to deliver the service to a high standard, as set out in the standards that we are discussing.

It is also important to point out that the organisation will scale up in line with demand. We do not necessarily know what the demand will be—in fact, we will see that only when the service is rolled out.

As far as I can recall, I made this point in my letter, but I should emphasise that there will be a working group that the service will engage with, which will include not only key stakeholders, who will be able to have an input to and to engage with VoiceAbility, but, crucially, people with lived experiences, to ensure that we have a connection between the new service and those who use it.

We are excited about what the organisation is going to do and how it will perform under the contract, and we look forward to working with it as it rolls things out. Of course, as I have emphasised to members, any such advocacy will be independent.

On the issue of costs, I do not have those figures just now, but I undertake to come back to the committee on that.

That is correct.

I thank colleagues for their comments. I respect and appreciate the points that Jeremy Balfour has made, but I do not believe that the review and reporting obligations that would be imposed by the amendments in the group are required, and I will set out why.

The Scottish Government has recently published evaluations on the carers allowance supplement and the young carer grant, as Maggie Chapman alluded to a few moments ago. The evaluation shows that the supplement has gone some way towards meeting its overall aims, which are to improve outcomes for carers by providing extra financial support and to provide greater recognition of the essential societal contribution that carers make. The majority of young carer grant recipients felt that it helped to make a difference to their lives, gave them access to more opportunities and improved their mental wellbeing.

We have undertaken all of that, and we are progressing our work to deliver Scottish carers assistance, including the commitment to an additional payment for those with multiple caring roles. I cannot support the amendments in the group, because meeting the additional reporting requirements that they would create would require reallocation of resources internally in the Scottish Government, away from our work to develop Scottish carers assistance and away from on-going work to consider improvements to the young carer grant.

The funding is new. As I said, it is an investment of £20 million in a new service to fulfil the obligations in the 2018 act. We will make that investment over four years.

We will work with VoiceAbility on raising awareness. I will be pleased to keep the committee updated on our engagement with the charity as it develops its presence in Scotland and creates the networks that are needed to deliver its service effectively. That will involve working with a range of partners, which is what VoiceAbility has done in other parts of the United Kingdom, to raise awareness of the service. As part of the 2018 act, there is an obligation on us in that regard. As ministers, we are focused on raising awareness of what social security support in the round is available to people, as are Social Security Scotland and the wider Government.

On the point about the service being exclusive, when people request advocacy support with devolved benefits that are delivered by Social Security Scotland, that will be delivered exclusively by VoiceAbility. However, if people want advice, they will still be able to go to a citizens advice bureau or through other organisations.

Of course, the distinction between advocacy and advice is important. Mr Balfour will recall that we discussed it at length during the progress of the 2018 act.

Ruari Sutherland might want to come in.

To Parliament, do you mean?