 Good morning and welcome to the sixth meeting of the Apologies, Social Justice and Social Security Committee. We have apologies from Natalie Dawn and Evelyn Tweed and as my Evelyn Tweed is here, I'm glad to say as her substitute. I am reminded by my laptop going off that we should have our mobile phones on silent, please. Our first item of business this morning is a decision to take item six consideration of our work programme in private. Are we all agreed? Thank you very much. Agenda item two is an evidence session on the Social Security Advocacy Service Standards Scotland amendment regulations. This is the committee's first consideration of affirmative regulations. I'll quickly summarise the process. We'll start with an evidence session from the minister and this will be followed by a formal debate on the motion. The minister will be given the opportunity to move the motion and respond at the end. The committee will be asked to make a recommendation to Parliament on whether we consider these regulations should be approved. This recommendation will be made via a report. Before I begin, I'd like to thank the minister for sharing the draft amended advocacy standards with the committee to allow us to make a more informed decision on the regulations being considered. I remind colleagues that those draft regulations were shared in confidence and therefore would encourage members with any questions on those to refer to the draft standards in general terms, please. I'd like to welcome to the committee once again to become a bit of a habit. Ben Macpherson, Minister for Social Security and Local Government, Dr Rory Silloland, supporting access to social security team leader, Social Security Policy Division. Online, we are also joined by Colin Armstrong, Sponsorship and Delivery Manager, Social Security Policy Division, and James Clelland, solicitor with the Scottish Government legal directorate. I'd like to invite the minister now to make an opening statement on the regulations, please. Thank you, convener, and good morning, everyone. I'm pleased to be here today to talk about our new social security advocacy service standards. I'm also pleased to confirm, as I have done in writing to you, that, following a regulated procurement process, we have now awarded the first four-year contract for the provision of an independent advocacy service as required by the Social Security Scotland Act 2018. I will provide a little more detail on that shortly. First, I will give a brief overview of the amendment that was sought by the Social Security Advocacy Service Standards Scotland amendment regulations 2021. The Social Security Advocacy Service Standards set out the standard of service that independent third-party organisations are required to provide on behalf of the Scottish Government. The current advocacy service standards were published in January 2020, and they restrict providers to the use of individual instructed advocacy. That is where the individual is able to directly communicate to the advocacy worker what outcomes they want, as well as the actions that they would like to take in. Through extensive consultation with stakeholders on our advocacy short-life working group, those include the Scottish Independent Advocacy Alliance, Citizens Advice Scotland and several independent advocacy providers. It became clear to us that removing the restriction to instructed advocacy in the service standards would increase the scope of the service and build on our human rights-based approach by making it more widely accessible. That amendment to the service standards was therefore suggested by stakeholders in the advocacy sector, and it is one that enjoys a unanimous support of the members of the advocacy short-life working group. We are pleased to respond to that by bringing that amendment forward to you today. Crucially, that amendment allows providers to offer non-instructed advocacy. That is an holistic approach where the advocate combines alternative methods of communication with observations of the client and their situation and information from significant others in the client's life. That leads to a more person-centred approach where providers are able to offer the forms of advocacy that are most appropriate to each client according to their circumstances. That will increase the scope of the service, reduce any potential for confusion and avoid potentially inconsistent outcomes. I am sure that the committee will agree that that is a positive step towards providing a more inclusive service and helping disabled people to access social security. Those service standards are designed to be applied in practice. As I wrote to the committee yesterday to provide an update on the delivery of the independent advocacy service and the organisation that will be responsible for implementation of the standards. As I have mentioned, we have now concluded the regulated procurement process to appoint a national supplier. I am delighted to say that we will be working with voice ability to fulfil that vital role. Voice ability is a charity with 40 years of experience of delivering independent advocacy services. It brings with it a deep knowledge of the sector and a wealth of experience in supporting those with disabilities to get the outcomes that they deserve. Voice ability's delivery model promises a number of positive impacts for the people of Scotland, including commitments to establish a new base and bespoke training centre in Glasgow, to creating up to 100 new jobs and free apprenticeships as devolved benefits continue to be introduced. Having a clear presence in all health boards at launch, recruiting 75 per cent of their workforce from those who are long-term unemployed or economically inactive, signing the Scottish business pledge and paying at least the real living wage. That is an important step in the delivery of the Social Security Scotland Act 2018 and a substantial contract award, with the Scottish Government committing to investing £20 million in the service over the next four years. I would be happy to provide any further information on all of that, which would be of value to members, and I move to motion. Thank you very much indeed minister. As one colleague has already indicated, I am happy to take questions now, so I will start with Jeremy Balfour and move to further colleagues after Mr Balfour. Thank you, convener. Good morning minister and colleagues. First of all, how welcome I think this amendment is. I think it will open up lots of avenues for everybody who is offering advice to the most vulnerable and so totally supportive of it. I wonder if I can just ask a few questions around the advocacy service and how you see that developing. If I give you three questions minister, I won't win. I hope you have to come back. The first one is in regard to funding. Is this new funding that will be paid to it? Obviously, there are other organisations already providing advocacy services that get Scottish Government money, so is this new money or will this be money that will be taken from advocacy services that you are already providing? Secondly, how will parents and going forward others know about the service? How do you see it being advertised so that people can make use of the service? Finally, how do you see this fitting into already what is happening within tribunals for advocacy services? We have CBE, advice shops and other organisations already doing that. Is this an exclusive thing that people are going through or will people still be able to choose to go to another organisation and get funding for that? It is new funding, so this is an investment of £20 million, as I said, in a new service in order to fulfil the obligations in the 2018 act, so that will be the investment that we will be making over four years. With regard to raising awareness, we will be working with voiceability and I will be pleased to keep the committee updated on our engagement with them as they develop their presence here in Scotland and create the networks in order to deliver the service effectively. That will be part of working with a range of different partners, which is what they have done in other parts of the UK in order to raise awareness of the service. Of course, we have an obligation on ourselves as part of the 2018 act and we are very focused as ministers and the agency as well as the wider Government on raising awareness of what support is available to people in terms of social security in the round. On the point about being exclusive, the support that people will need with regard to the benefits that are delivered by Social Security Scotland, where advocacy is necessary or is requested, will be delivered exclusively by voiceability. Of course, people will still, if they want to get advice, be able to go to the Citizens Advice Bureau or through other organisations. Of course, the distinction between advocacy and advice is an important one. Mr Balfour will recall that we discussed at length during the process of the 2018 act. I do not know if you want to come in on any of those three points with any further. If I go to a tribunal for my PIP hearing in due course, which is going to be run by Social Security Scotland, and I am looking for an advocate to represent me at that tribunal, I have the choice of choosing to go myself and advocate for myself, or I can go and have the CAB or the advice shop in Edinburgh or other organisations across Scotland do that. Are we saying now that the only people that will be allowed to advocate at a tribunal will be this group that you are paying for? Are we closing the door for other organisations to be able to do advice at tribunal service? Is it an exclusive contract? In terms of what the Scottish Government will fund, yes, but Rwy, do you want to talk about if people want to undertake a preference? You do not need to press it. No, I think that the point that the minister makes about exclusivity in terms of the Scottish Government-funded services is absolutely correct, but clients will be able to choose whichever service they want in terms of the support that they receive, but the funding now will be exclusively for voice-ability advocacy services. In terms of that change, funding for CAB and for other organisations will be cut. They bid for it at the moment, so the advice shop in Edinburgh gets money from Edinburgh Council and from the Scottish Government to offer advice and assistance, so they go along to tribunals. Will that funding in due course be reduced to those organisations because they are no longer able to give that advocacy service? We cannot speak on behalf of what the Edinburgh Council will make in terms of choices. But, of course, advocacy services currently and advice services—and, of course, there is that distinction between advocacy and advice—provide advocacy and advice on a range of different social security benefits, many of which are reserved. If people are looking for support with regard to reserved or other benefits, then, of course, some of those services will still be available to them if funding choices are made in that regard. I have to also emphasise that we went through a regulated procurement process for that. Bidders were encouraged, as you would appreciate and would be appropriate. We have gone through that process, and that is the outcome. There is a need to avoid double funding. That is a question in terms of the prudence of the public finances that the Government has to always consider. Thank you, minister. Before I bring in Pam Duncan-Glancy, just to be absolutely clear, you are still expecting citizens advice, for instance, or Cavia in my constituency, to still be able to represent constituents at tribunals that would be held, potentially, in social security Scotland. It is just that they would not be funded by the Scottish Government. I have a question about the procurement process, first of all, but also in relation to the points that were made about funding. You said that it has gone through a significant procurement process, which is excellent, and what we would expect, of course. Some of the organisations that I might have expected to end up providing that might have been one that, for example, had a due restriction and worked already in Scotland. Were there any applications in that process from organisations that delivered advocacy in Scotland already? I would be keen to know a little bit about that, in particular, given what you have said about funding and that funding will be solely provided for the purposes of advocacy for social security Scotland to only one organisation and that that one organisation is based not here yet. I would be keen to know about that. The point that the convener made about people's representation at tribunals and within their assessments is that it is important that people have an option to be able to take the person that they have a relationship with as an advocate and to have a bit of choice in that, notwithstanding the fact that, if you are only funding one agency to do this specifically, then it does limit the choice. Will someone still be able to go to their assessment with someone else as their advocate and that person's views would be not disregarded because they were not working for voice-ability, for example? On the last question, Pamdan Cunglunce, I am going to bring Colin in in a minute on the procurement process. To say that the procurement process was undertaken twice, so it was undertaken from 2019 to 2020 and then an award was not made because of the pandemic and the process was undertaken again. Throughout that whole process, there was engagement from Scottish Government officials with current providers to give them all the awareness and information in order if they wanted to, for example, make a collective bid, but that was not undertaken and I will let Colin say any more that he wants to on that. Excuse me. This is the second procurement process in terms of other organisations that did, but we cannot announce that a year, I am afraid, but there were three organisations that did. It was a regulated procurement process and it was done under the most important framework. I will say a bit more. Our consortium bids were welcome but not made. Two organisations with a presence in Scotland, Citizens Advice Scotland and Money Matters, made applications, but through the regulated procurement process, flexibility, on the assessment that is made through the appropriate law and criteria, where the assessment is the strongest bid and therefore awarded the contract as appropriate. I would echo what we have already heard. The regulations are very welcome. It will open up opportunities for advocacy for other people. My final point and question on it was about the training for the advocacy provider. Have you given some thought to the sorts of training that they might get, what sort of training they will have in terms of disabled people or carers and will that take into account the range of conditions that they might be supporting people with, given that in the past, not here but in other jurisdictions, I guess, some of the assessors have not necessarily had the training or support that might have been needed in order to be able to give the full support to the client that they need to. That is a very important set of points that Pam Duncan-Glancy makes and one that we took very seriously through the consideration of the process. I will bring Ruri in a minute, who has had a lot of engagement with voiceability on the lead-up and the award of the contract to speak more to that. Those are important considerations that voiceability has had up to this point in its service delivery elsewhere in the UK and are important considerations for them as they build the service here in Scotland. Ruri, I do not know if you can see any more on that. I think that it is clear from meetings that we have had already with voiceability that they are absolutely committed to working with the Scottish Government in developing their programme of training, as well as Social Security Scotland to have an existing training programme around working with disabled people and working with various parts of the population. Voiceability has committed to setting up a bespoke training centre based in Glasgow, and that will deliver the training to all of its advocates. We have already had discussions with voiceability about using some resource from Social Security Scotland to support the delivery of that training. It is also important to add to the minister's point about voiceability's previous experience in the rest of the UK that it already supports up to 30,000 people a year and 80 per cent of the clients that it supported last year had a disability of some description. Thank you very much indeed, that has been very helpful. Just for the benefit—is there anybody else looking to come in, Marie and Miles as well? I have one quick question myself, and that is just for the benefit of potential service users, those who are watching today. Could the minister please outline how we can guarantee that voiceability will be independent and that there is also a willingness and ability to be able to criticise Social Security Scotland and the Scottish Government if necessary? That is absolutely the focus of what we are amending in the regulations today. It is the standards that are set out, the advocacy service standards, which of course we are amending if the committee passes the instrument today in order to ensure that the quality of what is considered is appropriate and regulated, but that independence is absolutely assured. We went through the process in 2018 in order to make sure that, when we went through the act in 2018, there was a determination and a commitment to make sure that there was independent advocacy available. That is us delivering that. It will not be provided directly by anyone working for Scottish ministers, including staff of Social Security Scotland. It will be provided by people working for other organisations, for voiceability, and the advocacy worker will support Social Security, advocacy rights and needs. They will work for the individual involved and on their behalf, free from conflicts of interests as possible. That is all set out in the services. Voiceability is an important point of emphasis in terms of the award, because voiceability will only be delivering advocacy, and it will not be delivering advice. They are specifically contracted to deliver the advocacy commitments in the 2018 act, and to be there for clients when they need them. Can we go back to the point that Mr Balford made? Mr Balford is confusing advocacy services with advice and professional services. Surely, an advocate is expected to make well for rights points during a tribunal. I think that we need to be careful with the different roles there. I certainly welcome the regulations. As a minister, we will know that the assistance people need often covers many, once in a range of social security benefits. Is it the case that some will need advocacy in regards to devolved and reserved benefits at the same time? Do you envisage the overlap that is getting in the way of overall advocacy that a person needs? The point is well made about advocacy and advice being different. Of course, advocacy is a provision of support that helps someone to express their rights views and wishes and what they want to achieve, whereas advice would be important guidance or recommendation on someone's future action or decision. The focus of voice-ability service will be on advocacy when it comes to social security benefits that are delivered by Social Security Scotland. Miles Briggs, please. I have Jeremy Balford with a brief supplementary. Thank you, convener. Good morning, minister, and to the panel. There are a couple of questions that I wanted to ask. Firstly, to put on record, I think that all of us around this table welcome a move to independent advocacy, but I think that there are concerns around the organisation not having this footprint in Scotland and institutional knowledge. I just wanted to ask a few questions around what assurances beyond the letter that you have provided to the committee. You have had that this will genuinely be a national service. Sitting up a centre in Glasgow is one thing, but Glasgow is not Scotland. I apologise to Glasgow members around this table, but I think that it is important that we make sure that this is a national service. Some of the barriers that we have heard previously are not going to be put up by a new service being established. What level of funding is provided to other organisations in Scotland to provide that advocacy? Mr Briggs raises important questions. Those were questions that we obviously considered as part of the award process. The voiceability delivery model is built around home-based staff and an existing network of over 100 accessible co-location venues in local communities across the country. That is what they have been engaged in and what they will be engaged in now going forward in terms of delivery of the contract. This is an approach that the organisation has used since before Covid-19. It has moved to digital and utilising being accessible in communities in that way is something that it was ahead of the game on before Covid-19. That has allowed them to be flexible and responsive to fluctuating demand. It has also allowed them to have a clear presence in all health boards at launch. They will have a presence in all health boards, so that geographical presence that Mr Briggs rightly raised will be there. They are very committed, as you would expect, to creating this presence in Scotland and working with others in a collaborative manner. I look forward to seeing that happen and I am sure that the committee will look forward to engaging with them, too, as they expand into Scotland from a strong position of delivering in the rest of the UK with that Scottish base in Glasgow, that bespoke training centre. That will allow the organisation to ensure that advocates and volunteers are equipped with the knowledge and the skills that we have already spoken about to deliver the service to a high standard that is set out in the standards that we are discussing today. They will also scale up in line with demand. That is an important thing. We do not know necessarily what the demand will be and we will only see that when the services are rolled out. It is also important to emphasise—I know that I made this—as far as I can recall, this point was made in my letter, but there will be a working group that the service will engage with that will include key stakeholders having an input in terms of their engagement and voice ability, but also, crucially, people with lived experiences in order to make sure that we have that connection between the new service and those who use it. We are excited about what they are going to do and the performance of the contract. We look forward to working with them as they roll out, but, of course, the advocacy will be independent, as I have emphasised already, in committee today. In terms of the costs, I would like to come back to the committee on that, because I do not have that figure with me just now, but I will give an undertaking to come back on that point. In terms of commitments, you have touched upon digital barriers. I think that that is something that, to some extent, we have seen improvements, but, from those that are sometimes further removed, we have not. I think that that is something to consider what commitments are around people who do not have access to digital technology. In terms of BSL language translation services, are there commitments that have been received on those issues to providing services and advocacy? I will let Ruri come in in a minute in terms of engagement with visibility on that, but they are committed to providing an accessible service, which is what they have done before. As a Government, we are committed to that accessibility generally when it comes to social security. That is why we have introduced our local delivery teams from Social Security Scotland to encourage people and help people to apply for benefits. In a similar manner, those considerations have been, as you would expect, an important aspect of our considerations here. I do not know if you want to say any more about that, Ruri. Voiceability has already given a clear commitment to fully accessible service, but it is also set out in the service standards, which it will have to adhere to. The advocacy services and workers will communicate using the methods and forms that the client needs and prefers in all cases. Thank you, Dr Solander. Thank you, Mr Balfour. I think that Mr Balfour had a brief supplementary. I will bring in Evelyn Tweed. Just to reassure Mary, as a person about draft of the amendments on advocacy, I think that I have a reasonable understanding of the difference between the two. Can I just go back to a point made by my colleague Miles Briggs? I live in Orkney, Shetland, and I am looking for an advocate to come to the tribunal to me. I presume that I have no presence of this company yet in that area. How will they provide that? Or if I am in Stornoway or in the more rural areas of Highland, how many people will be working in those areas? Often there are maybe a tribunal in Inverness or the same day as a tribunal in Stornoway. Will they be guaranteed that the advocacy that I need will be there on the day? I talked about the 100 co-location venues and that full accessibility and the presence in all health boards. The combination of utilising those venues and being present in those health boards and the collaboration will mean that there will be support available to people no matter what their geographical location is in Scotland. I need to piece it in, minister. There is a difference between being a presence in a health board and a presence and a tribunal on the day. I am absolutely guaranteed that if I need someone to advocate for me in Stornoway on a Tuesday morning, there will be enough people covering that to be able to provide that service. The service commits to giving people the advocacy support. They need where they need it and when they need it. That is in the contract. Thank you, minister. Eveline Tweed is the final question. Independent advocacy is to be absolutely welcomed. I am interested in the outcomes of the service and what it is going to achieve for people. How are you going to report those? In terms of Parliament, we will continually review the service as part of the contract. There will not be a formal process in terms of parliamentary updates, but I will keep the committee updated and the committee will be able to inquire with voiceability itself in terms of its performance on behalf of Parliament. I assure you that, as we do with any procured contract for service, we will make sure that the contract is continually reviewed, that the performance is being considered and that the service provider, in this case, for stability, are fulfilling the needs of what we are contracting them for, but also the standards. I do not know whether you want to say any more about that. Is there significant reporting aspects as part of the contract? As the minister said, the contract sets out a number of significant reporting requirements on voiceability in terms of how that is reported to Parliament. That is something that the minister can consider and write to in the coming days, but there are significant reporting requirements and those will feed into any contract extension. The initial contract period is, for two years, with an optional two-12-month period of extension beyond that, taking us to the full four years. All reporting through that first two years will feed into any decisions around extension of the contract. Those milestones within the contract are about assessing performance and provision. In terms of outcomes, we collectively, both the Government and Parliament, will be watching to make sure that the standards are met and that the service is being effective for people and do that in due course. It was just a question that I had listening to the conversation this morning about the health board model. I wondered what rationale had been around using that. I fully understand patient advocacy, but would it not make more sense for local government to be that kind of model, given that a lot of advocacy has already taken place within local government for people? The fact that it will be present in all health boards is an illustration of the fact that it will be engaged across the country comprehensively, geographically and, of course, there are wider considerations around that in terms of collaboration with different organisations and wider engagement in terms of awareness. The point that Jeremy Balfour rightly raised is that there will be considerations around local government being informed and included in the process of raising awareness in particular, and we will, of course, engage with them on that. In terms of why the considerations around the contract and why it is the health board presence that I have highlighted, it is just to illustrate the geographical availability and the fact that there will be a comprehensive service throughout Scotland to make that point. Thank you very much. For no further questions, we move on to the formal debate on the motion that is considered under the previous item. Our third item is to consider the motion S600996 that the social justice and social security committee recommends that the social security advocacy service standard Scotland amendment regulations 2021 be approved. I remind the committee that only members and the minister may take part in the formal debate. I invite the minister to formally move the motion. I hope that today's being helpful and that it's clear to the committee that this new service, along with the regulations under consideration, is another step towards the living social security system that works for people with fairness and dignity and respect at its heart, and I move the motion. Thank you very much, minister. Do any members wish to speak in the debate? Good. I therefore put the question on the motion. The question is that motion S600996, in the name of Ben Macpherson, be approved. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Thank you very much. The motion is therefore approved. I will now need to thank you very much, minister, for your time this morning and your officials that have supported you as well. It's very much appreciated. I'll now briefly suspend to allow the minister's officials to change over. Thank you very much indeed, colleagues. Agenda item 4 is the committee's consideration of the Carers Allowance Supplement Scotland Bill at stage 2. The Minister for Social Security and Local Government stays with us for this item. Pleasure to have you again, Mr Macpherson. I also welcome Maggie Chapman to the committee who is here to speak to her amendments. The minister is now joined by Andrew Strong, but I remind colleagues that his officials cannot take part in this debate. They are not named on the record and Stephanie Villoglu is also watching him from the public gallery as well, so welcome. Everyone should have with them a copy of the bill as introduced the marshal list of the amendments that were produced on Monday and the groupings of amendments that sets out the amendments in the order in which they will be debated. There will be one debate on each group of amendments. I will call the member who lodged the first amendment in that group to speak to and to move that amendment and to speak to all the other amendments in the group. Members who have not lodged amendments in the group but who wish to speak should indicate by catching my attention in the usual way. The debate on the group will be concluded by me inviting the member who moved the first amendment to wind up that group. Standing orders give any Scottish minister a right to speak to any amendment. I will therefore invite the minister to contribute to the debate just before I move to call the winding up speech. Following the debate on each group, I will check whether the member who moved the first amendment in the group wishes to press it to a vote or to withdraw it. If they wish to press their head, I will put the question on that amendment. If a member wishes to withdraw their amendment after it has been moved, they must seek the committee's agreement to do so. If any member objects, the committee immediately moves to the vote on the amendment. If any member does not want to move their amendment when called they should say not moved, please note that any other MSP may move such an amendment. If no one moves the amendment, I will immediately call the next amendment on the marshaled list. Only committee members are allowed to vote. Voting in any division is by a show of hands and it is important that members keep their hands raised clearly until the clerk has recorded the vote. The convener has a personal vote as a committee member and also a casting vote in the event of a tie. It is entirely a matter for the discretion of me as the convener how to use that casting vote. There are no agreed conventions on that point, however, if the casting vote is used, I would normally intend to indicate the basis on which I will use that casting vote before doing so. The committee is required to indicate formally that it is considered and agreed its section and schedule of the bill, so I will put a question on each section at the appropriate point. If everybody is content with where we are after that brain dump, we now move on to consideration of amendments. I would like to call amendment 3 in the name of Maggie Chapman, in a group on its own. Care is fulfilled an essential role across Scotland and the pandemic has placed it under unprecedented strain. That is why I warmly welcomed the bill last week. It will help over 90,000 carers this winter through doubling the payment. As there is no green on this committee, I wanted to place the support on record here, and I am grateful to the convener for giving me the chance to do that. However, as I said last week, this is only part of what we need to do to ensure that our social security system recognises and values the work that carers do. As with universal credit and other benefits, we have our work cut out for us and I welcome the willingness of the Scottish Government and others to work together to do better. Over the past couple of weeks, I have had useful meetings with the Scottish Government about support for carers, including young carers. The meeting this week with the Social Security Minister was particularly helpful. Those conversations have been wide-ranging, and I thank the minister for his time and the information and assurances that he has given and the on-going discussions that I know we will have. On that basis, I am content that there are other avenues to explore and by which we can see action on the issues that my probing amendments seek to address, so I will not move or press any of the amendments lodged in my name today. Thank you for your time. Thank you, convener, and forgive me if this is the incorrect moment to say this, but I actually think that this is a really, really good amendment and we have a really strong opportunity here to send a signal that carers who have worked day and night throughout the pandemic and before that, because we must not forget that unpaid carers have been providing unpaid care long before the pandemic, but they have been doing it in this year in particular under a lot of stress, a lot of strain, and many have been plunged into poverty. I understand where the member is coming from and I think that you see as a debate we had last couple of days ago and know that that will continue, but I am slightly concerned that one group will get £711.46 while other carers will get nothing with these changes, even not a better way than picking on one set of carers, but to deal with all carers, and is this the right methodology to do it on this one? I take the member's point and I think that you are right in terms of the number of people who are going to miss out. I think that carers allowance and therefore carers supplement is only available to one in 10 people who are providing unpaid care across Scotland, so it is absolutely correct to say that this does not meet the needs of all the unpaid carers in Scotland, but none of this bill meets the needs of all the unpaid carers in Scotland. What we are doing by applying the uplift at this particular point is recognising that the people who are captured by the bill, the people who will get the supplement, get a supplement that is representative of the amount of money that we think and that we, as a Parliament this week, agreed with enough money or agreed with a better reflection of the amount of money that people needed to live on. We have an opportunity today to make sure that we apply that uplift for unpaid carers, which is why it is a really, really important mechanism to use it. The Government and almost all parties around this table, at least the ones in opposition, agreed that that uplift was essential, and I think that we need to do all that we can. You asked whether I feel that this is the best mechanism. It is not the best mechanism because it is missing nine in 10 carers. However, it is the only mechanism that we have, and as the Government has said, it is the fastest mechanism that we have right now to put money in unpaid carers pockets, which is why I strongly support this particular amendment, and if it is possible for me to do that, I would move this amendment. Thank you. Would any other members wish to speak at this stage? Improving support for carers, of course, was one of our first priorities with our new social security powers, and our carers allowance supplement launched in September 2018 has increased carers allowance by 13 per cent. Carers in Scotland continuously in receipt of carers allowance and carers allowance supplement will have received 2,270 pounds more than carers in the rest of the UK since launch. We have secured the resource, and that is an important point, for a doubling of the December carers allowance supplement in this year's budget. We must therefore focus this bill that we are considering today on ensuring that we get this increased two carers in December. Amendment 3 would increase by £480.6 the amount of carers allowance supplement to be paid this December. That would more than triple the amount, certainly. Thank you, minister. Do you think that the current amount of support that unpaid carers get from the state, either through the supplement or through carers allowance, is sufficient to keep them out of poverty? I thank Pam Duncan Glancy for that intervention, and I think that there is more that we need to consider and do for carers as we look to bring in Scottish carers assistance. However, we also have to work within the fixed budget of the Scottish Parliament. It is important to consider the fact that we are working within a budget that was set in the spring in order to deliver this. That is an important point of consideration. You were a point. I will, yes. Thank you, convener, and I do really appreciate you taking a second intervention. You are right to point out that it was based on a budget that was set in spring, but another committee this week, the Equality, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, heard from organisations, including carers organisations and women's organisations, that the distance between the programme for government and the budget process, the timescale between it, was in actual fact a bit restrictive in exactly the way that you have just described, because you can set out your programme for government and all the aspirations you have, but you can continually therefore claim that you have to wait to make any material difference to people's lives by adding the budget in place. Can you consider a way that we could change that? In addition to that, we also heard that the budget within which you have to work, you have to be sure that you are using the maximum available amount of resources and targeting it at the people who need it the most. I would consider that those people are unpaid carers. Pam Duncan-Glancy is right. As a Government, we want to target our support towards those who need it the most, which is why we have committed to and brought forward this bill in order to pay a double supplement in December to give that added support and secured that budget. I cannot speak to the evidence heard in another committee because I have not seen it myself and I am sure that Pam Duncan-Glancy will appreciate that. It is important to remember that section 2 will allow us in the bill that we are considering today to consider the need for increases for future periods. I appreciate that that may be a point with other amendments that we are considering in due course. That must be done through budget processes alongside considerations of funding for wider support for carers. One way that this could be improved would be any moves from the UK Government to increase the underlying level of carers allowance, and that would be something that we would welcome. The challenge in considering resource available in this year's budget is an important point of consideration with regard to the amendment in particular. I cannot support the amendment, convener, because any further increase this year would require resource to be allocated from elsewhere in the budget, a budget that was agreed by Parliament, and that would have repercussions in other parts of Government spending. We cannot do that regularly, and that needs to be considered. On that basis, I am grateful that, following the discussion on those points, Maggie Chapman was content not to move the amendment based on the arguments that she has put and that I have put forward. In terms of a position of responsibility and consideration of the budget in the round, that is not something that we can do at this point. I urge members to reject the amendment on that basis and focus, as we should, on making sure that we get that double supplement that is provided for in the budget to carers in December, who have entitlement to carers allowance and make sure that they get that benefit in good time. Thank you very much, minister. I apologise to Evelyn Tweed and Miles Briggs. I had set out the outset that I would call other members after the amendment had been moved, then the minister, then I would call the leader amendment and the proposer to wind up. I note, Ms Chapman, that you wished to withdraw the amendment, however having spoken to it, that the debate has started, so I invite you to press or withdraw amendment 3, please. I will withdraw. The question is that amendment 3—I apologise, I will suspend for two minutes—are members content to have amendment 3 withdrawn? Are we all agreed? No, in that case there will be a vote. I would like to call all those in favour of withdrawing the amendment to please raise their hand. I will call all those not in favour of withdrawing the amendment to please raise their hand. I suspend for two minutes. Thank you very much indeed, colleagues. Just to clear confusion, that vote was for the amendment 3 to be agreed to or not. The amendment was not agreed. There were four, six against four to four, so the amendment is not agreed. We move now on to consideration of amendment 4 in the name of Maggie Chapman, which will be grouped with amendments 5, 8 and 9. I invite Maggie Chapman to move or not move. Thank you, convener, not moved. Thank you very much indeed. I invite Jeremy Balfour to speak to those amendments. I intend to move amendment 4, 5, 8 and 9 if the member decides not to move them herself. I think that those amendments are quite helpful by Maggie Chapman, and I thank her for bringing them to the committee this morning. Amendment 4, our Scottish ministers to review CAS amount paid once payment is made and report to a Parliament. I think that that is quite a helpful amendment because it will allow this committee and the whole Parliament to review what is going on on an on-going basis. It will also include a new increase in young carriage grant in a similar manner. Again, I think that that is something that we perhaps all have aspirations to want to happen, even if it cannot quite happen at the moment. I think that that is a helpful amendment as it keeps the issue alive for us as a committee and the Parliament, and it means that we can go too forward on it. Amendment 8 is a kind of payment amendment, so if amendment 4 goes through, then amendment 8 would be there for a payment amendment. In regard to amendment 5, it calls for a review on whether people caring for more than one person should get more money before we make this type of payment again. Again, this is an issue that the committee grossed with in its last session, and I think that we have already had evidence given to us as well around this, in that how do we deal with people who are caring for more than one person? I think that this will become a growing issue as we have elderly parents who have one or two on a lot of cases. You maybe have two children in a family who have a disability and need caring for, and we haven't quite ever grasped that. Again, I think that this is a helpful amendment that keeps the issue alive. In regard to amendment 9, I think that this is a payment amendment for amendment 5. I thank Maggie Chapman for bringing us towards the committee and for helping us to have not only a wider review but a continuing conversation as a Parliament issue. To reiterate what my colleague Jeremy Belfour has said, I think that these are very useful amendments. I thank the member for bringing them forward. Further to what she has outlined to the committee at stage 2 about discussions that she has had with the Scottish Government on this, can she reassure us that the Scottish Government and the Green Party will bring them back to Parliament at stage 3? The work that is important within those amendments is going to be taken forward, and has she received that commitment from the minister here so that he can maybe outline that to committee? I don't know. I'm happy to defer to the minister on that. We've had several discussions about the information that those amendments sought to address. Some of that information is available already. Further reporting and information mechanisms will be made publicly available as consultation and discussions carry on, but I don't know if the minister wants to say anything else. Before I call the minister, I wonder if any other member would wish to speak to amendment 4 and those in the group. In that case, I'll call the minister, please. I hope that the amendments are not a way to proceed, so I can't support them. I respect and appreciate the points that Jeremy Balfour makes. However, I do not believe that the review and reporting obligations that would be imposed by the amendments in this group are required, and that is why. The Scottish Government has recently published evaluations on both the carers allowance supplement and the young carer grant, as Maggie Chapman alluded to just moments ago. Those show that the supplement has gone some way to meeting its overall aims 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 that, and we are progressing our work to deliver Scottish carers assistance, including the commitment for an additional payment for those with multiple caring roles. I cannot support those amendments because meeting those additional reporting requirements that would be created as a result of those amendments would require reallocation of resources internally in the Scottish Government away from our work developing Scottish carers assistance, and away from on-going work to consider improvements to the young carer grant. I was going to say, cabinet secretary, was the minister take an intervention at that point? Yes. So, if you are not reporting to Parliament internally what reporting are you doing, if it is going to remove resources away, what reporting would then be taken place, and if you are doing it internally, why can my information not be shared with the Parliament? As I said, we have recently published evaluations on both the carers allowance and the young carer grant, and we will continue to do that as appropriate in due course, but to place the obligation would, as I said, take resources away from developing Scottish carers assistance on the on-going work to consider improvements to the young carer grant, which is where our focus should be. So, if those amendments were not agreed to today just in direct response to Miles Briggs, there would be no intention to bring those back at stage 3. However, I can commit to continue to explore options outside of the bill, and I've obviously talked about what we've done in terms of evaluation in recent times. So, convener, I'm grateful for the discussions that I've had on those points with Maggie Chapman in recent days and that she proposes to seek to withdraw amendment 4. However, if another member, as Jeremy Balfour has stated, he may seek to move the amendments, then, convener, as much as I'm grateful for the debate that we've had on those points, I would urge members to reject each of the amendments on the report requirements, as they will retract from our work on developing the new Scottish carers assistance. Maggie Chapman had indicated that she wishes to withdraw amendment 4 since then. It has been moved by Jeremy Balfour, so I called Jeremy Balfour to sum up the debate and to press or withdraw amendment 4. Thank you, convener. I am just slightly confused by the minister's response here. We're told on one hand we're trying to evaluate, we're trying to do all the work, we're producing reports and then we're told that we're taking away resources if we have the support to Parliament. It feels slightly to me that the Government is trying not to be open to scrutiny from Parliament and is deciding its scrutiny on its own terms. For that reason, I think that both amendment 4, 5, 8 and 9 are important and it is my intention to move amendment 4. Thank you very much indeed. Mr Balfour, the question is that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed, so there will be a vote. I would ask all those who are in favour of amendment 4 to please raise your hand. All those against, please raise your hand. Thank you very much indeed, colleagues. The vote on amendment 4, the result was a tie with 4 in favour for opposed. In this regard, I will need to use my casting vote as chair and given the assurances that have been given by the minister that he will continue to evaluate and assess another means that I am willing to cast my vote against, so the result of the vote will be 5 against 4 for and amendment falls. I will now call amendment 5 in the name of Maggie Chapman, already debated with amendment 4. Maggie Chapman has indicated that she wishes to withdraw, however it has since been moved by Jeremy Balfour. Jeremy Balfour, do you wish to move or not move? Sorry, have I suspended? Mr Balfour, do you wish to move or not move? Okay, in which case there will be a division. Are all members content with amendment 5? We are not agreed, so there will be a division. All those in favour of amendment 5, please raise your hands. All those against. Thank you very much. The vote on amendment 5 is as follows for 4 against 4. Again, as there is a tie, I will need to use my casting vote and again, based on the insurance that is given by the minister regarding the work in this area, I am willing to cast my vote against. Therefore, the result is 5 against 4 for and amendment falls. I will now call amendment 1 in the name of Jeremy Balfour, grouped with amendment 6. Thank you, convener, and I write that I will be moving amendment 1 in my name, and I will also be supporting, if moved, amendment 6 by Pam Duncan Clancy. I think that, for me, this is the key issue for us going forward in this bill. It is very welcome that this double payment is going to be paid this year and I appreciate its coming out of a budget that has already been set, and that we will have to be found. However, we have seen many delays to the Scottish benefits being delivered by Scottish ministers, and we need to get on delivering them. I am hoping that the timescales that the Government has given that they will be met, even if they are not what we had hoped for when we first started on this journey. However, there is no guarantee that that is going to happen. We do not know that none of us have a silver bar or none of us know what is going to happen in the next few years, and there could be further delays. Therefore, what this amendment seeks to do is to give an increase of a one-off payment every year to double it. We have not set the budget yet. Budget negotiations, I presume, are going on between ministers and between the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, so this can be budgeted for, and it can be put into next year's budget. I appreciate that it is more money, but I am presuming that the Scottish Government is going to pay all the benefits that we are already committed to. We are told that it has to come under a budgetary negotiation, but it varies true with all benefits in that PIP, DLA, attendance allowance all have to be met. As the minister is well aware, it is a demand-led service, so none of us can be absolutely sure 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 last 18 months. That will be true perhaps in future years, as we perhaps have benefit take-up benefits will go up, and that will all have to be met within the Scottish Government budget. I think that that is a reasonable thing. I think that it gives people some kind of guarantee that they are going to get money. As the minister pointed out very forcefully on Tuesday afternoon in the chamber, those are political decisions. Those are decisions that we have to make politically, and we have taken different views of our universal credit issue, but here is a decision that we as the Scottish Parliament can make. It is a political decision that we can decide whether we want to take or not, and I suppose that it says to people how much do we value carers, not just in perhaps nice words, but actually with a financial package. That is why I would move amendment 1. I suppose that if the Government and the Parliament wanted to be even more generous, we would then support amendment 6 in the name of Pam Duncan Glancy in that that gives two payments. I can recognise the need for that, and I think that in particular financial circumstances that is worth arguing for. We are giving, I suppose, an option here whether we make one off payment until at least 2025 or whether we make two payments. I would be interested to know what the minister's view is around that, but it is clear to me that those are political choices. We can often criticise other Governments for doing different things, but we have the power here in Scotland to do this today to give a guarantee. I hope that all members of this committee will make the right political choice to say a very clear message that we care about carers and that we want to support you financially. Thank you very much, Mr Balforn. I call Pam Duncan Glancy to speak to amendment 6 and both amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener. At the start, I move amendment 6 in my name. That is my first time in committee doing so. Colleagues, there are 392,000 additional people who have become carers overnight because of the pandemic, and not all of those people will be able to access some of that funding, but there are a significant number of people who can. For those people, we need to show them that we recognise the work that they have done in this year. In the past year, I have spoken to carers and they have told me that they are undervalued, that they feel invisible, exhausted and broken. Before I go any further on the reasons where I would like the committee to support my amendment and our amendment, I want to say thank you to all of the unpaid carers in Scotland for the work that they did, whether or not it has been recognised with the financial uplift. I also want to say thank you to paid carers, without whom I would not be sitting here today. Unpaid carers have worked 24-7 for a year with no break. They are absolutely exhausted. Carers in Scotland, I think that it is important to remember, were also poorer than average before the pandemic due to a combination of factors, including access to secure, adequately paid flexible employment and additional disability-related costs, such as higher energy and transport costs. In 2019 alone, the family fund noted that a third of families supported saw an increase, an income reduction in their household. A third of carers are struggling to pay utility bills. 47 per cent have been in debt and half are struggling to make ends meet, cutting back on food and heating as a result. I think that all of us around this table can agree that that is unacceptable. Carers were then hit harder by the effects of lockdown. Family fund found that 78 per cent reported that their overall financial situation had got worse. Half of families surveyed have seen their income fall as a result of the coronavirus pandemic through furlough and increased caring responsibilities. At the Equalities and Human Rights and Social Civil Justice Committee the other day, we heard that in some cases many women have had to give up paid work to undertake unpaid care, and that has cost in excess of £50 million a day. The uplift to carers benefit that was applied by doubling the carers supplement during the pandemic is absolutely the right thing to do, but the pandemic is nowhere near over, and all opposition parties and indeed the Government agreed to that principle this week when they made the same argument about the need to retain the uplift in universal credit. The Scottish Government has promised to introduce carers assistance, the new benefit that will replace carers allowance, but we know that that is going to take some considerable time before it addresses the rate and eligibility for carers assistance. That means that unpaid carers in Scotland are having to wait for promised reforms and have more money in their pocket for too long. We have a chance just now today to keep the uplift on a permanent basis until the carers assistant is introduced, and carers agree that carers Scotland have estimated that every day of the Covid-19 pandemic unpaid carers saved the Scottish Government £43 million. A contributor to that report said that the supplement must be doubled permanently. If the Government had to pay for outside agencies to do the work of unpaid carers, it would cost a lot more. Carers are completely undervalued and forgotten about, and that was from an unpaid carer themselves. I fundamentally believe that we have an opportunity right now, while the teeth of the pandemic is still biting, to make sure that we retain the uplift. The correct thing to do was to double the supplement in this year, and the correct thing to do is to give carers certainty going into the future and until we have reviewed carers assistance in Scotland. I urge the committee to vote for this amendment, to make sure that we do that, not just once a year, as amendment 1 suggests, because I believe that carers are not just for Christmas. Unpaid carers are for much more, and I believe that we need to do that twice a year and make the payment twice. I urge the committee to support carers, thank them for the work that they have done and value them, give them extra money in their pocket and support their amendment in my name. I think that this bill absolutely shows that the Scottish Government value carers, and we do. We heard in the evidence in earlier sessions that carers really appreciate what the Government is trying to do. Obviously, the Scottish Government wants to do more, but we have to make those changes in a planned fashion. There is an enabling power in the bill to increase carers allowance supplement, but it has to be done in a proper planned fashion. I agree that it needs to be planned. That is why, in December, we will have a budget plan, which will then be decided. What both amendments do is give certainty in regard to any plan. It is not new money that is having to be found in a set budget, but it is a new budget. What more planning needs to take place when we are having a budget negotiation over the next few months? I think that that is up to the Scottish Government to look at in the round. I take the point about planning, but I hope that there is considerable planning undergoing anyway as a result of looking at carers assistance in the future. I would also ask the member to consider the planning that unpaid carers have to do to plan for their financial circumstances and their household bills. It is far easier to plan when we know certainties rather than uncertainties left at the discretion of the possibility of ministers deciding at any point that they are not going to double the uplift. I take the member's point, but I would say that the Scottish Government is listening. We heard that from the evidence. I would also acknowledge that the Scottish Government has introduced seven brand new benefits already and four replacement benefits, and they are more generous than elsewhere in the UK. The Scottish Government is listening. I take the intervention. You are right to point out that, in some ways, it has been more generous, but carers, unpaid carers and their homes are not comparing themselves to someone else elsewhere in the UK. They are comparing themselves to other people who are not providing unpaid care, who are considerably better off because they are not having to provide unpaid care, or they are unpaid carers not getting any access to carers allowance because it has not been—eligibility has not been extended, so they are getting nothing comparing themselves to people who are. Those are the comparisons that unpaid carers out in our constituencies and communities that we represent are making, not whether or not someone is better off elsewhere. I acknowledge your point, but I would still go back to say that the Scottish Government is listening. Going forward, it will be looking at the situation for carers, and I would also like to say again that, in evidence, carers acknowledged what the Scottish Government was trying to do and welcomed what the Scottish Government was trying to do. I welcome the key aims of the bill, which is to recognise one massive contribution that unpaid carers have made during the pandemic by doubling the amount of the carers' assistance supplement. Getting the money into the pockets of carers at Christmas is a real time of financial pressure for families. It is also part of the Scottish Government's continued approach to rectifying the long-term injustice of carers that they have had from the Westminster Parliament. In addition, it is the £149 million that we have rightly provided to 120,000 carers since September 2018, but I do not support the ad hoc approach to the amendment. It is taking to setting the future rates of the supplement. The proper way to do that is through the budget process, as that guarantees. Interventions, if you could make sure that they are brief, please. Thank you, convener, noted. Could you describe why you think that this is ad hoc? I think that we need to plan. I think that it is important that we get it right. In the day, 45 years of parties I am going to carry on. It is really important that we have meaningful consultation with carers about how we best support them through the new carers' assistance benefit. I think that Mr Balfour should bring forward a proposal that is part of your Tory budget and show it then how to balance the books. It is also said that the supplement should go further if the carers' UK touries finally get the right things and align the value of the carers that are aligned with jobseekers' aligns. In response to your point, Pam, I do not support the ad hoc nature of the amendment. The best way to do it is to make the spending commitment to 40 million. The bill already has enabling powers that my colleague has already mentioned. It allows the ability to increase the level of supplement as part of the budget process. From my contributions in the chamber and the committee, Pam, you will know that, like you, I recognise that there is much more that we need to do to provide a decent system of social security. There is a lot that we still need to do to mitigate the impact of the Westminster cuts. Given the scale of what we want to do, it must be done through the budget process and we must do it alongside carers as we would develop the new system, which is really important that we consult. In addition to the increase of doubling the amount to assist with the impact of the Covid-19 supplement, we have fixed the wrong and have been afflicted by the carers for years. As I mentioned last week, since 1976, we have initially introduced invalid carers' aligns and the obviously excessive UK Government's refuse to align the amount. Now carers have a 13 per cent increase. With addition, it will be £690 better off than carers down south. I say again 45 years collectively, Pam. You have made no effort to address the concerns of carers elsewhere. Thank you very much, Ms McNair. I could remind colleagues to please debate through the chair and also when referring to colleagues if they could do so using their full names for the benefit of those watching. We can all agree that this extra winter payment is needed this year and deserved particularly in light of the work that carers do and the extra burdens that have been created for them over the pandemic. I am not sure that taking a decision right now to uplift by the same amount next year, given that we have all learned in the last two years that we cannot at the moment know what next winter is going to look like, is really the right thing to do. I am reassured that the bill gives ministers the power to make further increases as part of the budget process, as is being done, certainly. Your colleague talked about ad hoc. We have had the conversation here that ad hoc is not the way forward. That means that carers cannot plan. We do not agree that for carers to have certainty rather than ad hoc decisions made at a whim of a minister is a much better way forward and all benefits have to be paid by the minister. In every budget discussion, we have to work out a social security budget that has to be paid. I am here today hopeful that we are going to give carers certainty that this winter they are going to get an extra payment that is needed. I think that we have to recognise that Scotland will now be the only country in the UK where carers allowance is no longer the lowest of working-age benefits, thanks to the supplement. Mr Balfour is right when he said earlier that these are political decisions. He could always encourage his colleagues in the UK Government to increase carers allowance itself to the level of job seekers and let the supplement go further. I think that the context is important here because what we are discussing is an increase to a top-up to a benefit, which is the lowest paid of any UK working-age benefit. It is a short-term intervention to get extra cash into carers pockets this Christmas because their UK carers allowance payments are woefully inadequate. We have heard from witnesses in the last few months who told us, among other things, that there are huge issues around eligibility for carers allowance. We have already heard that this is going to benefit an estimated one in 10 carers, which is nowhere near good enough. We have to consider the need for the Government to have appropriate time to consult with carers, those that they care for, carers organisations, in order to bring in a carers assistance that will reach as many people as possible rather than clumsily introducing an amendment to increase a top-up to a payment that we know is inadequate. There is not endless money, so I think that it is right at the moment that we accept this extra payment as a positive thing that is aiming to top up a flawed system. Nobody in this room disagrees that carers deserve more, but we have to do it right. First of all, I want to emphasise that this Government absolutely values the role of unpaid carers. We are the Government that introduced the carers allowance supplement in 2018 to ensure that carers no longer receive the lowest benefit, as Emma Roddick rightly highlighted. We introduced the young carer grant. Both of those benefits are unique in the UK and are two of seven brand new benefits that we have introduced to provide more financial support for the people of our country, as Evelyn Tweed rightly emphasised. Through our social security powers, we now invest more than £350 million a year in supporting carers through carers allowance, carers allowance supplement and the young carer grant, which is a significant investment. Since 2018, around 574,000 carers allowance supplement payments have been made, totaling £149.4 million and made to around 120,000 carers. Carers continuously, in receipt of carers allowance and carers allowance supplement, will have received over, as I said earlier, £2,270 more than carers in the rest of the UK. I, like colleagues around the table, would of course like to see carers receive more support. That is where we are working towards together. I would encourage, as part of this, as Emma Roddick rightly emphasised, that the UK Government to increase the rate of carers allowance, which would see over 900,000 carers across Great Britain receive increased support and would mean that our supplement would go further. We recognise—this is a really important point, as Pam Duncan Glancy emphasised—that the pandemic has identified a need for greater flexibility in how we support carers when society faces significant changing circumstances. That is why last year we used the emergency coronavirus legislation to introduce an additional payment and to do so last year. That is why we are doing so again this year. Of course, that is what this bill is all about. To prevent the need for primary legislation to be needed in the future, the bill includes a power to enable ministers to bring forward regulations that could increase the amount of the carers allowance supplement in the future. That is an important enabling power that we proactively put into the bill. In terms of this financial year, as I have already said this morning, we have secured the resource for a doubling of the December carers allowance supplement, which is why we prioritise bringing the bill forward. Again, thank you to the committee for their work in the expedited process of this. This is the first bill of the term to get to stage 2, and we are doing it with that pace to focus on ensuring that we get the resource to carers in December. I appreciate the ambition and desire of members to try to provide more assistance. Mr Balfour talked about political choices on Tuesday, and we have political choices to make, just as we have financial ones. We are choosing, as a Government, to make a difference where we can. We chose to mitigate the low value of the carers allowance through the supplement to the cost of around £40 million a year since 2018, and we have done that because we want to make a difference. We chose to mitigate the bedroom tax at a cost of £70 million a year. We chose to introduce the Scottish child payment and bridging payments to support thousands of children and put £130 million into the pockets of families in this financial year. Those are the political and financial choices that this Government makes every year within its fixed budget. That is an important point—we have a fixed budget. We chose to pay last year and this, an additional carers allowance supplement of more than £230, as I have said. We may be able to make a choice in the future, depending on the budget and what else is an important point and what else we do with Scottish carers assistance as it develops into a new replacement benefit for carers. We have choices ahead. Through the development of Scottish carers assistance, we are looking at options for the longer term, which will increase our support for carers through our social security system. As the committee will know, we begin our consultation this winter on proposals for the delivery of Scottish carers assistance. That will require us to carefully consider the balance to be struck between extending eligibility for Scottish carers assistance and increasing the amount of Scottish carers assistance. As I said in the stage 1 debate, future increases to the carers allowance supplement will be considered in the context of the circumstances that carers and the financial constraints that we face. If we were to commit the resource that the amendments before us today ask us to and to commit that resource over future years, we potentially could not utilise it to support carers in other ways. That is why we need to consider those issues in the round and why I cannot support either of those amendments and urge committee members to reject them. Thank you very much, minister. To wind up the debate, I call Jeremy Balfour to press or withdraw amendment 1. Jeremy Balfour, if you could be brief with your wind up, please. Thank you, convener. I have a few points to respond to the debate that we have had. I was very proud back in May to be elected to the Scottish Parliament and to have powers that we have got within this Parliament. That is what I am here to do. I am here to use the powers that the Scottish Parliament has. I have to say that I disagree with everything that is tweed that this is a Scottish Government decision. I think that this is a decision that we make as a Parliament and that is why we have been elected to be the voice of those who are perhaps the most vulnerable in our society. I do not believe in a dictatorship, I believe in democracy and I believe in parties playing their role in regard to that. The other point that the minister made there is that it is not a fixed budget that we have. We have powers, if we want, to increase or decrease our budget. It is not a fixed budget that you are set. It is a budget that is available, depending on decisions made by this Government and made by the Parliament. The number 3 issue is that we all want to see Scottish Care Assistance come in. However, as the minister has appointed out, we are starting the process in December with a consultation, which will then rightly show, take people's views. The Government will then rightly respond to that consultation and then we will have the proposals coming after that. That is not going to happen overnight. It is not going to happen next year. It is not probably going to happen in the year after. I think that the provisional date is 2025. That leaves us with four years of uncertainty of whether Ben Macpherson and the Cabinet Secretary of State have successful negotiations with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance. Maureen MacNeill 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. I want the Scottish Government to know that when they are planning their budget, that payment will either be made a double once or twice a year depending on which amendment we go for. We all have choices to make. I am not an MP and I am not there to make choices or wishes. I am here and we are all here on this committee today to make choices that we can influence here in Scotland. That is why I will be questioning my amendment. Indeed, Mr Balfour, the question is that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. The colleagues are not agreed, so there will be a division. All those in favour, please raise your hand. All those against, please raise your hand. On amendment 1, the votes were for against, for for. Therefore, there is a tie. I will be using my casting vote and, given what the minister and what colleagues have said, I will be casting my vote against the amendment today. The amendment is not agreed. We now move on to amendment 6, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, who is already debated with amendment 1. Pam Duncan-Glancy to move or not move. Thank you, convener. I move the amendment. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 6 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed, therefore there will be a division. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Thank you. On amendment 6, there were for against, for for. Therefore, there is a tie. I will be using my casting vote again, based on what the minister and what colleagues have said in the committee today. I will be using that casting vote opposed to that amendment. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed to. I will now move to call amendment 8, in the name of Maggie Chapman, who is already debated with amendment 4. Maggie Chapman to move or not move. However, since Maggie Chapman has chosen not to move, there has since been a debate, and I wonder whether other colleagues would wish to move. The amendment 8 is not moved. Are we all agreed to move on? I will therefore call amendment 9, in the name of Maggie Chapman who is already debated with amendment 4. Maggie Chapman to move or not move. Thank you very much indeed, that amendment is not moved. To give colleagues a couple of minutes as a comfort break, I will now suspend for two minutes. Thank you very much and welcome back. I now call amendment 2, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, in a group on its own. Jeremy Balfour to move and speak to amendment 2, please. I haven't had a really important debate previously. This is a bit nerdy, and will be for more technical amendment. However, I think that it's an important one for at least to debate and for us to come to a view on. That is in regard to how we as a committee in how the Parliament should look at the any regulations that the Government brings forward in due course in regard to this bill. We heard in the previous debate that from a number of members and the Minister that there is power here for the Government to bring forward regulations in regard to whether they have that amount varied and how that will vary. Regulations often end up as a committee at a very late stage and often don't get the proper scrutiny that is required. That is no criticism of anyone, I think that it's just the way the system works. However, I think that if we have the super affirmative, it at least gives us a time to pause and look at these regulations in a proper way. It also allows a third party, a third group, to be able to have a valuable tool to look at it as well, to make sure that there's no unforeseen circumstances behind them and also allows us a bit longer just to consider the regulations. I think that it gives us a proper check and it is one thing that, when we were putting through the original bill and now act in the previous session, we were very keen that, because many of those benefits affect very vulnerable people, that we want to all get it right, including Government and the Parliament. For that reason, I do think that having the super affirmative in regard to these regulations will allow us a bit more scrutiny. I suppose that, in some ways, I'll make the Government think about it a bit quicker, because it will have to be reduced in a quicker way, but it will go through proper scrutiny. I will be interested to hear what the minister has to say in regard to that. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed, Mr Balford, for not least for your brevity. I cannot see any other colleagues wishing to come in at this stage. I'm sorry, I meant to think that it's unnecessary at this stage. If you think about the evidence that we heard early on in the submissions, that carers wanted this pay as quick as possible, I think that it may create a delay. It's not helpful. You recall again from the evidence from the Scottish Commission on Social Security that there seem to be possibly capacity issues there, so delays associated with going down this road, so I'm not supportive of this way forward. Many thanks, Ms McNair. Are there any other colleagues? No, I'll call the minister to speak to this amendment. I appreciate Mr Balford's points in bringing this forward. However, I do not believe that this amendment is required. First of all, I want to emphasise that the Scottish Commission on Social Security plays a really important role in providing a detailed level of scrutiny to draft social security regulations where the advice of experts in social security is required. However, any decision to increase the amount of an existing benefit must be made in the context of the wider financial and non-financial support provided to those entitled to the benefit and within the wider fiscal context and the limits of our budget. Those are decisions best suited to this Parliament. Given the changes that can be made under any regulations brought forward under the new power that we're seeking to introduce as part of the legislation, they are limited to increasing the level of the supplement for a specific period or periods. We therefore do not consider that the further scrutiny by the Scottish Commission on Social Security is necessary or appropriate in this instance. The application of the affirmative procedure here will allow members adequate opportunity to consider any regulations in draft. I would also note that that position was supported in the dedicated powers and law reform committees stage 1 report on the bill. Therefore, considering all those points, I do not support this amendment and would urge Mr Balford not to press amendment 2. If he does, it is moved that it is not supported by the committee. Thank you, minister. I appreciate your brevity. I now call Jeremy Balford to wind up to press or withdraw amendment 2, please. Thank you, convener. I thank the minister for his reflective comments on this. I do agree with, again, where we make near that. I think that Scots will always be around the capacity for Scots and I think that something we as a Parliament need to look at going forward. The regulations that I am talking about are future regulations and I do not think—unless the minister misunderstood my work—that I am looking to do is regulations going forward not affecting the December payment. However, I think that the minister has made some interesting points. With your commission, convener, I would like to reflect on those and not move the amendment now and see where we are at stage 3. Thank you very much indeed. Mr Balford is seeking to withdraw the amendment. Are all colleagues content? We now move to the question being that section 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question next is that section 3 and 4 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that the long title be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you very much indeed, colleagues. That ends our consideration of stage 2. I wish to make it known to colleagues that the deadline for stage 3 amendments is 12 noon on Monday 4 October and we expect the Parliament to consider stage 3 on Thursday 5 October. I would like to thank the minister and non-committee members and minister's officials for joining us this morning. I will briefly suspend the meeting before moving on to our next agenda item. At agenda item 5, the committee is invited to consider two negative SSIs. Again, it might be helpful if I clarify some procedural points for colleagues. SSIs laid under the negative procedure will come into force automatically unless the Parliament passes a motion to annul or they are withdrawn by the Scottish Government. There is no procedure for amending the SSI. It is not possible for us to accept some parts of the SSI but not others. The only way for a committee member to stop a negative SSI coming into force would be to seek to lodge a motion to annul the instrument. That being said, the committee can make recommendations for future changes to be brought forward through other changes or highlight any concerns that it may have to the Scottish Government. We will now move to the first negative instrument under consideration, the Social Security Claims and Payments Miscellaneous Amendments Scotland Regulations 2021. Those regulations would allow large payments of arrears of devolved disability benefits to be paid in installments to Scottish clients if the consent is given by the client. Further background information is outlined in paper 4 in our briefing papers. Do members have any comments that they would like to raise in regard to those regulations at this stage? Nope. Are members content to note this instrument? Thank you very much indeed colleagues. We move to consideration of the second negative instrument under the agenda item. I invite members to refer to paper 5, which details our consideration of the Council Tax Reduction Scotland Regulations 2021. The purpose of those regulations is to ensure that, as far as practicable, a household in the same circumstances receives the same level of council tax reduction whether it is on universal credit or not. The committee has wrote to stakeholders in advance of today's meeting to invite further views on those regulations. I wish to thank, on behalf of the committee, Citizens Advice Scotland, CPAG, One Parent Family Scotland and IRRV for their responses. I also thank the Minister for Public Finance, Planning and Community Wealth for his written response to the issues raised. Do members at this stage have any comments that they would wish to raise in relation to those regulations? Pam Duncan-Glancy, first. Thank you, convener. First of all, I will support the regulations. Just a couple of questions I have around it, I guess. It is really complex. I do not know if it is just me, but it felt like it was very, very complex. There was not that much time to really get underneath the skin of it, to be honest. I wondered if we are content that we are happy enough that there has been enough data provided on this and that we understand really who the winners and losers are. I, of course, welcome the application and the levelling of the people on legacy benefits and universal credit. I think that it is absolutely the right thing to do. I would just say that we really understand specifically the differences and who is going to do okay and who is not out of it. That would be the only concern that I would have. I am happy to make a suggestion on that part if any colleagues would wish to raise any further concerns. My suggestion would be to write again to the minister to seek further detail on that part, if that would be helpful to colleagues in the committee and to would answer the points raised by Pam Duncan Glancy. In which case, first of all, would colleagues be happy for that to go ahead to write to the minister again, just to seek further comment, and I would invite Ms Duncan Glancy to work with the clerks in order to frame the questions that you would seek to have answers to. I would ask our members otherwise content to note the instrument. The start-up costs of the new system and the loss income to councils will be quite a lot. It is important that councils are fully compensated for that. I also note that there is no guidance for the councils on how the scheme is administered. Can we have a wee bit of background on that as well? If Ms Duncan Glancy is content for Mary McNair to work along those lines in that same letter to the minister. In which case, are we content to note the instrument?