³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Good morning to you and your team, cabinet secretary. It is always good to have you at committee. You might have seen that, last week, witnesses refuted the Scottish Government’s arguments for excluding 16 to 19-year-old carers who are in full-time non-advanced education from claiming CSP. What were the evidence and rationale for that decision?

The deputy convener has raised really interesting points, and I was interested in Paul Bradley’s response. I ask him to provide written examples of what he was talking about to the committee. Obviously, an organisation might not want to be named, but it would be helpful to have real-life cases that we can take up with the Scottish Government.

We are looking at this year’s budget, but we also need to look to future years. The Scottish Fiscal Commission has highlighted that there will be a fairly major gap of more than £1 billion in the budget over the next two to three years. Paul, I know that you said that you do not talk about taxation, but, using more general terminology, where do you think we should be going to bridge that gap? Do you or your members have any views on that?

Let us go back to the appeal process. I may be wrong on this, cabinet secretary, so please correct me if I am. My understanding is that if someone puts in an application and is refused, they have no right of appeal. Will you be looking at that in respect of tidying up the system? That would seem, to me, unfair.

If I am wrong on that, which I think I may be, what is the right of appeal? There seemed to be a lack of clarity on that at our meeting last week.

That is really helpful. For clarification, which tribunal would that go to?

Alison Davis, I saw you nodding away. Is there anything that you would like to add to that?

What would be your preferred methodology for allocating money?

Sorry—I meant an appeal to a tribunal.

Obviously, we will support the regulations this morning. However, I have made the point on numerous occasions—and I will make it again—that I think that the process is slightly flawed. We take evidence from the cabinet secretary and then immediately have to vote on the regulations. As a Parliament, we have to look at the fact that, even if what the cabinet secretary has said today causes us concern, we have no option but to vote either for or against the regulations, and the Scottish Government has no time to reflect on the questions that we have asked. That is a procedural rather than a substantial issue.

There is still concern about some individuals, particularly in certain education settings, being left behind. In your answers, cabinet secretary, you said that there are varying views on the matter. The evidence that we have taken as a committee is that the payment should be made. I am grateful that you have said that you are going to look at the matter again, and I hope that we can look at it sooner rather than later. The danger, once we pass regulations as a Parliament, is that we then move on to the next thing and leave people behind. I hope that you will take what we and you have heard seriously and that some amended regulations can be brought forward in this parliamentary session. I am interested to know whether that is the timescale that you would be looking at, if you were to bring forward changes.

I also look forward to seeing the proposals in your bill, later this year, which will deal with the overpayment issue and the right of appeal. Again, we have taken evidence on that.

As someone who benefits from unpaid care, I think that we all recognise the massive role that unpaid carers play in our society. Often, those individuals do not necessarily want to do it but are put in a position whereby they have to do it because of their family situation—geographically or just because of how their family is made up. I welcome what we are doing here, as a Parliament, and I think that it will make a difference to individual lives. However, as you said, we do not want to leave anyone behind. I would welcome a mention—perhaps in your summing up—of the timescale that you are looking at for at least thinking about bringing in any changes.

Thank you.

I will follow that up with two brief supplementary questions. You are absolutely right to say that not all caring is necessarily age appropriate. However, people are where they are and, sadly, some people’s only choice is to use a son, daughter or sibling to help, because there is no one else to do it. I accept that we do not want to push people into caring, but sometimes they are pushed into it yet will no longer get any financial assistance.

In addition, are we not making a distinction between different types of education? We are saying that, if they are in one form of education, they can have money but, if they are in another, they cannot. I am concerned that we are making a false comparison between different types of education rather than recognising that, whatever way people go, further education is important.