���˿���

I thank the minster for that answer, and I am grateful for the change. Although it may seem quite technical in its terminology, it will make a very big difference to many people who are applying, so I welcome it.

I put on record my thanks to your team, minister, for all the work that they have done on the regulations. They are technical, but they will be very important for the people applying. Again, I thank your team for that, and thank you for the changes that you have made.

The question is more about those who are moving on to ADP having to reapply, given that they are already on the system and have been identified as having a need that requires them to receive benefits.

I want to pick up the same point as Pam Duncan-Glancy. Minister, it would be helpful if you could write to us with the timetable of when things are likely to come to the committee.

According to your letter, the regulations were not seen by any stakeholders. Is it correct that there was no consultation with stakeholders? I appreciate that the amendments are quite technical, but I just wanted to check whether that was the situation.

It is a missed opportunity.

On a technical point, you have removed a requirement to make the payment by 31 December. Why not either put in a later deadline or just meet the deadline of 31 December? Why is there a delay in making that payment?

A yes/no answer might suffice for my next question. I am conscious that we now have the Scottish Government providing some benefits and the UK Government providing other benefits. That could mean that people have to go to two different websites, or perhaps a lot more than that. Would it be helpful for the people who you are working with to have one website that had all the benefits that they could apply for, so that they did not have to go through lots of different websites or fill in lots of different forms? If all the information was in one place, would that make benefit uptake more likely?

I have two quick supplementary questions.

First, I think that what we are trying to do with the transfer comes under the terminology of “safe and secure”, which is used a lot. Everybody who is on PIP will just transfer straight across. Are you then forecasting that, once people are transferred across, they will look to have their decision reviewed, and thus we will see people moving to a higher rate?

Secondly, is it your expectation that there are a substantial number of people out there who are not applying for PIP but who will apply for this different benefit? If so, why is that the case? Is it because they are holding off, because they think they have more chance with the new agency? Will it be a result of advertising and awareness-raising campaigns? How did you come to that conclusion—if, indeed, that was your conclusion?

It is nice to see you back. I would like to pursue the differential that you foresee with the Scottish Government’s move from PIP to ADP. The regulations are similar for both benefits, so there will be no differential in that regard. Could you give me a bit more on why you think that it will cost more?

My second question might be outside your remit—if it is, I apologise. If take-up is higher, will the cost have to be met by the Scottish Government or can it go back to the UK Government and say, “Another 5,000 people have applied for this benefit. Can you give us the money for it?” How do the Governments work that out, whether it is a result of natural take-up or a deliberate policy decision?

Thank you for your answers so far. I want to discuss income maximisation, particularly in relation to the situation that we will have in Scotland with more benefits being run from Scotland and benefits also being run from Westminster. Even before the pandemic there were lots of figures out there about how much money was not being taken up because people were not applying for it. I am surprised by how many people still do not know that they are entitled to benefits or to different types of benefits. How do we maximise the benefit take-up by people who you are dealing with? I ask Jon Sparkes to respond first, and others on the panel can jump in if they want.

I will speak to my amendment 1. I also support Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 6.

For us, the proposal in amendment 1 represents the key issue in relation to the bill. It is welcome that the double payment will be made this year. I appreciate that the money is coming out of a budget that has already been set and that it will have to be found from that. However, we have seen many delays to the Scottish benefits that are being delivered by the Scottish ministers, and we need to get on and deliver them. I hope that the timescales that the Government has given will be met, even if they are not what we hoped for when we started on the journey. However, we have no guarantee that that will happen. None of us has a crystal ball and we do not know what is going to happen in the next few years. There could be further delays.

Amendment 1 seeks to create an increase through a one-off payment every year so that there is a double payment. We have not set a budget yet and I presume that budget negotiations are going on between ministers and the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy so that the payment can be budgeted for and put into next year’s budget. I appreciate that this involves more money, but I presume that the Scottish Government will pay all the benefits that we are already committed to. We are told that it has to come under a budgetary negotiation, but that is true of all benefits. The moneys for PIP, disability living allowance and attendance allowance all have to be provided.

As the minister is well aware, the service is demand led, so none of us can be sure about exactly how much the social security budget is going to be. We have seen the social security budget go up this year because of what has happened in the past 18 months, and that may also be true in future years. As benefits are taken up and the amounts increase, that will have to be met within the Scottish Government’s budget.

The proposal in amendment 1 is reasonable and it would give people some kind of guarantee that they were going to get money. As the minister pointed out forcefully in the chamber on Tuesday afternoon, these are political decisions. We have taken different views on the universal credit issue, but this is a decision that we can take as the Scottish Parliament. It is a political decision, and we can decide whether we want to take it. Amendment 1 proposes that we show that we value carers, not only through nice words but through a financial package.

If the Government and the Parliament want to be even more generous, we can support amendment 6, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, which would provide for two payments. I recognise the need for that, and in the current financial circumstances it is worth arguing for.

We have options to make a one-off payment until at least 2025 or to make two payments. I am interested to know the minister’s view on that. It is clear to me that it is a political choice. We often criticise other Governments for doing different things, but we have the power here in Scotland today to give a guarantee to carers. I hope that committee members will make the right political choice and send a clear message that we care about carers and want to support them financially.

I move amendment 1.

I intend to move amendment 4, and also amendments 5, 8 and 9 if Maggie Chapman has decided not to move them. The amendments in the group are helpful and I thank her for lodging them.

Amendment 4 would require the Scottish ministers to review the amount of carers allowance supplement once payment has been made, and to report to the Parliament. The amendment is helpful because it would allow the committee and the whole Parliament to review what was happening on an on-going basis. The report would also be required to cover Scottish ministers’ views on an increase to the young carer grant. I think that we all have aspirations for such an increase, even if it cannot happen at the moment. The amendment is helpful because it would keep the issue alive for us as a committee and for the Parliament and it would enable us to move forward.

Amendment 8 is a paving amendment for amendment 4.

Amendment 5 calls for a review of whether people who care for more than one person should get more money. In such cases, we make a one-off payment. The committee in the previous session grappled with and took evidence on how we deal with people who care for more than one person. I think that that will become a growing issue. People may have one elderly parent or two, and many families have two children who have a disability and need care, but we have never quite grasped that. Again, amendment 5 is helpful in keeping that issue alive.

Amendment 9 is a paving amendment for amendment 5.

I thank Maggie Chapman for lodging her amendments in the group and helping Parliament to have not only a wider review, but a continuing conversation on those issues.

I move amendment 4.