���˿���

Yes, I will. I just have two quick points to make in summing up.

I am very happy to work together with all parties to move the issue forward, but my concern is that, if we keep talking about it for too long, nothing will happen. This is an opportunity for us as a Parliament to make a decision, and I hope that we can revert to it at stage 3.

Mr Stewart, the cabinet secretary and Mr Doris have talked about money. It is true that we get the money that is given to us by Westminster; however, we then get to choose how we spend that money. Perhaps if we stopped getting our shipbuilding contracts so badly wrong, we would have more money to spend. Perhaps if we did not put people and open embassies in other parts of the world, we would have more money to spend. Those are political choices that Governments make. I think that people would prefer that we gave money to the most vulnerable in society, rather than giving it to projects that the Government simply cannot run.

On that basis, I will—

All three of the amendments in the group are important. It is a really helpful debate and it shows what the bill can do—reviewing what we did initially, how it has worked in practice and how it can be improved. On balance, on this occasion, the Scottish Government’s amendments are probably more correct than Mr O’Kane’s, although they seek to do almost exactly the same thing. For the reasons that the cabinet secretary has given, we will support amendments 24 and 28 and, with reluctance, we will not support amendment 105.

The previous few groups of amendments have been fairly politicised, but I think that this group will be less so. I am grateful to Poppyscotland, which reached out to suggest an appropriate amendment on the effect of compensation on discretionary housing payments. I look forward to hearing what the cabinet secretary will say about amendment 8. There is a principle that, if a person is involved in a civil claim and receives money from that, those funds will not be included in discretionary housing payment decisions. However, if someone has received military compensation, that would be included. To me, that seems unfair on those who have served our country. I look forward to seeing how the cabinet secretary will deal with the amendment, which I feel is appropriate.

I move amendment 8.

I did not move the amendment.

I will respond briefly to what Mr Stewart has said. He talked about new benefits, but he has not talked about existing benefits. Existing benefits at the moment in regard to criteria and eligibility—

Can I finish this one point?

The criteria and eligibility for adult disability payment exactly mirror those of PIP. There is no difference.

Apologies, but can we not move those amendments en bloc? I do not want to move amendment 109, but I want to move the others.

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?