³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

I am sorry, convener. We have heard a member say that an ad hoc approach is not the way forward, because it means that carers cannot plan. Do you not agree that, for carers, it is much better to have certainty instead of ad hoc decisions made at the whim of a minister? Moreover, all benefits have to be paid and administered, which means that in every budget process we will have to work out a social security budget that will have to be paid for.

Will the member give way?

I have a few points in response to the debate.

I was very proud, back in May, to be elected to the Scottish Parliament and to have the powers that we have. That is what I am here to do: to use the powers of the Scottish Parliament. I disagree with Evelyn Tweed that the decision is for the Scottish Government. I think that the decision is for us as a Parliament. That is why we have been elected: to be the voice of those who are perhaps the most vulnerable in our society. I do believe not in dictatorship but in democracy and in parties playing their role in that. That point is really important.

On the other point that the minister made, the budget is not fixed. The Government has powers, if it wants them, to increase or decrease the budget. The budget that is set is not fixed; the budget that is available depends on decisions that are made by the Government and by the Parliament.

The nub of the issue is that we all want the new Scottish carers assistance to come in. However, as the minister has pointed out, we will start the process in December, with a consultation that will, rightly, take people’s views; the Government will then, rightly, respond to that consultation and the proposals will come after that. That will not happen overnight; it will not happen next year; and it will probably not happen the year after. I think that the provisional date is 2025. That leaves us with four years of uncertainty on whether Ben Macpherson and the cabinet secretary have successful negotiations with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy.

Marie McNair said that we do not want an ad hoc system. I absolutely agree. I do not want an ad hoc system. I want absolute certainty, and I want the Scottish Government to know, when it is planning its budget, that the payment will be made either once a year at double the rate, or twice a year, depending on which amendment members go for.

We all have choices to make. I am not an MP. I am not there to make choices at Westminster. I am here today, as are we all on this committee, to make choices on things that we can influence here in Scotland. That is why I press amendment 1.

Good morning, cabinet secretary, and welcome back to the committee.

Either last week or the week before, we heard evidence about take-up. As you will be aware from your work on the committee, a lot of benefits are still not being taken up, but it was suggested that, if we were to run a campaign in Scotland to encourage more people to apply for attendance allowance or any of those benefits, it might have a financial cost to the Scottish Government. If more people were to take up benefits, would that have to be funded by the Scottish Government or would it continue to come out of the Westminster budget? Have you had discussions on that? Do you have any clarity in your thinking with regard to running take-up campaigns and the costs that might come from them?

It was on terminal illness. Our definitions north and south of the border are different. That was obviously a change in policy, so I wonder how the DWP and the UK Government reacted to that change.

Cabinet secretary, your portfolio has, to say the least, a very large remit. Indeed, I was interested to note that you are responsible for the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator and charities. It is perhaps not the most sexy subject for discussion, but a number of people have contacted me over the years to ask whether any thought has been given to reforming OSCR. For example, a charity with two people has to fill out almost the same number of forms every year as the National Trust for Scotland or other very large charities. I know that, earlier this year, OSCR ran a consultation, which has now concluded, but is any thought being given to charity law reform? It might not sound exciting, but such reform would make it a lot easier for many people to engage in the local community.

I would be grateful if you would do that.

If anything positive has come out of the past 18 months, it has been the relationship involving local government, the Scottish Government and the third sector, particularly with regard to homelessness. In Edinburgh, for example, a very positive three-tiered approach was taken, and it really worked. The third sector talks a lot about future proofing its funding. It often receives only one-year funding. Indeed, when I worked in a third sector organisation, whether we got our redundancy notices every December depended on whether we had money coming in the next year. It was not the most ideal place for any organisation to be in. I know that it is difficult to forecast funding, but are you doing any work with your colleagues, particularly Kate Forbes, on a two to three-year funding package for the third sector to allow it to plan things better?

It is a very complex issue. I am not sure that I totally followed your answer, but that is more to do with my understanding. Would it be possible to write back to the committee, putting your response in more layman’s language? If we are seeking to promote benefits that are now devolved to a new agency, I would find it helpful to know who is going to pay for that. I appreciate that the subject is very complex, and that it is not easy to give a one-word answer, but some kind of letter back to the committee would be helpful.

I will follow up a point made by Pam Duncan-Glancy on the divergence in policy. Under the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018, we diverge in policy on terminal illness. Was there a problem with the DWP at that point? Did it react negatively to that? Is it aware of that divergence? Is there a way we can build a relationship around policy difference? Does it seem to be working okay at the moment?