Our next item of business is to take evidence on the financial memorandum to the Carers (Scotland) Bill from the Minister for Sport, Health Improvement and Mental Health. Mr Hepburn is joined today by Dr Maureen Bruce of the Scottish Government. I welcome our witnesses to the meeting and invite Mr Hepburn to make an opening statement.
Thank you, convener. I am delighted to be back at the Finance Committee. I am also grateful for the opportunity to appear before you today to speak about the financial memorandum to the Carers (Scotland) Bill. As you say, I am joined by Dr Maureen Bruce.
As you know, the aim of the bill is for adult and young carers to be better supported on a more consistent basis, so that, if they wish to continue to care, they can do so in good health. I am sure that we all share that ambition for Scotland’s carers. They should have a life alongside caring. We intend to achieve that by extending the rights of carers and young carers in law. We also want to accelerate the pace of change.
In order to achieve our aims, we need to resource the bill’s provisions and, in particular, to ensure that local authorities are adequately resourced. I hope today to provide you with the necessary assurances that the Government’s financial assessments are as good as they can be, although, as we concede in the financial memorandum, there are challenges in making the estimates.
The challenges primarily arise because the uptake of the new rights will be demand led. Predicting how quickly carers will take up their new rights and the numbers of carers involved presents a particular challenge. A reasonable starting point must be the extent to which carers presently take up their rights. It is fair to say that the existing position or baseline is very low. We believe that the introduction of new rights would not mean a sudden reversal of that but rather a build-up in uptake over several years.
Another important cost factor is the average unit cost of the new adult carer support plan, the young carer statement and support to be provided to carers. My reply to your request for further information sets out the methodology and assumptions that were used to determine the average unit costs.
In recognition of the challenges in estimating demand and unit costs, I see merit in further work to refine the assumptions set out in the financial memorandum and the underpinning detail. That is why we will set up a finance-led group with key stakeholders, including the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and carers organisations. The group will consider cost estimates in further detail. It will also aim to establish a clear understanding of risks and how they can best be mitigated.
The group will build on the considerable level of engagement with local authorities and national health service boards that was established when they were all invited to complete a detailed questionnaire to help inform the financial memorandum. As I undertook to do in my letter to you, convener, I will keep the committee apprised of the group’s work.
Another factor may have an impact on the potential cost of implementing the bill. It relates to regulations that set out the circumstances in which charges are waived for support to carers. Some local authorities say that they are having issues with the operation of the current regulations. We are working with key stakeholders, including COSLA and the national carers organisations, to find a solution. If any mechanism that we seek to introduce at stage 2 of the bill to do with the waiving of charges has cost implications, the financial memorandum will, of course, be revised to take into account any additional costs. That point was set out in the original financial memorandum, and I was able to re-emphasise it in my letter to you, convener.
I know that my officials brought in COSLA to the thinking on the cost estimates. Of course, there are challenges in building up the estimates, but I think that COSLA could have presented its own estimates to us—it was certainly given the opportunity to do so. Indeed, that opportunity remains, and perhaps it can be best taken forward through the group that I have referred to.
An important point is that the existing funding through local authorities and NHS boards will remain in place. Local authorities are using those resources now to support carers and should continue to do so. If, however, a significant difference between the estimates and the costs arises as the bill is implemented, we will need to look at the issues again in light of the overall Scottish Government financial settlement. We will also need to look at the options available to us at that time alongside other commitments, just as we would in the setting of any budget process.
That is all that I have to say at this stage, convener. I am happy to deal with any questions that the committee has.
Thank you. As you know, I will start with some opening questions, and I will then open the session to committee colleagues. First, I thank you for the correspondence that you have engaged in with the committee.
When the bill team was asked whether the cost of replacement care would be a major cost of the bill, it responded:
“I think that it is fair to say that a further financial memorandum should be presented”.—[Official Report, Finance Committee, 13 May 2015; c 68.]
Is there any intention to present a further financial memorandum at this stage?
This is a critical part of the process. In the financial memorandum that was presented, we set out the issue that had arisen, and I have set that out in my opening statement.
We are exploring the issue further, and it could be that we seek to make some changes at stage 2. We have let the Parliament and the Finance Committee know at the outset that that is a possibility. If that involved substantial change to the terms of the original financial memorandum, we would of course—as we have set out in the financial memorandum—present a supplementary financial memorandum. As a former member of this committee, I recognise that it is critical for the committee to assess the financial implications of legislative provisions rigorously.
That was a long way of saying, yes, there would be such an intention.
Thank you for that. We are well aware that, when the Government produces a financial memorandum, it cannot always be absolutely spot-on: we consider best estimates. The concerns that have been brought to the committee’s attention are that, for many stakeholders, they are not the best estimates. For example, you will be aware that Social Work Scotland commented in relation to the unit costs in the financial memorandum that
“the selection of the lowest and highest options is biased.”
The organisation went on to complain about the average of £176 being a high-end estimate. Therefore, the overall costs themselves are lower than what Social Work Scotland believes to be the case in reality.
COSLA wrote:
“Given that the FM itself describes the £176 as the average unit cost, it is COSLA’s view that, in presenting a range of unit costs in the FM with £176 at the top of the range, this is misleading.”
I certainly would not accept that we were seeking to mislead anyone or that we have presented biased information. The process of gathering the information has essentially been led by COSLA, which has been intimately involved in the gathering of the available data that we have had to work with. That was set out in the annex that came with my letter to you. We can only work with the available information that was gathered and presented to us. There is no attempt to present the costs in a biased form or to present them in any way other than the clearest possible fashion.
I think that I am right in recollecting that we conceded that there are some other average costs that we did not include in our consideration because they seemed to us to be outliers. It was not only the higher figures that we did not include when we came to our estimate; we also discounted some of the lower estimates. If we had included one group of figures rather than the other, we could have been open to accusations of bias.
I understand that there are concerns, and I suppose that that is why we have stated our willingness to establish the finance-led group. Paragraph 7 of the financial memorandum makes it clear that we are willing to have more information. We are aware that COSLA has concerns.
I note that I have met the COSLA spokesperson for health and wellbeing, and I made the offer to him and his colleagues that, if COSLA has alternative estimates and an alternative methodology, we are very willing to see them. Thus far, COSLA has not sent anything to us. I reiterated that offer in a letter to the spokesman, but we have not had anything thus far. We are doing what we can to engage with COSLA, speaking with its representatives about any concerns that they have. We have invited COSLA to take part in the finance-led group, too. We have not had a reply thus far, but I am sure we will have one soon.
When did you contact COSLA?
We contacted it about the finance group last week, I think.
It is probably a wee bit early for it to get back to you.
Potentially. I should add that others who have been invited have got back to us. That is not a criticism of COSLA per se; I am just making the point that the offer is there and that the organisation is yet to get back to us.
It will probably have to consult its members.
The issue is not just the amount of money but the scale. The financial memorandum suggests a 16 per cent increase in adult carer support plans over five years, but North Ayrshire Council has said that it is estimated to be at
“53% in the first year not as stated in the bill ‘when carers come forward’”.
There is also an issue about people having their annual carers plan reviewed, as that would increase the uptake of these resources.
Therefore, the question is not just about the amount but the scale. It seems to me and, I believe, to other members of the committee that there is a wide divergence. The problem is not that there is a divergence—we expect that in all bills, as you will know, minister, having discussed many bills when you were a committee member—but this bill seems to contain a tremendous differential in the range of uptake that local authorities anticipate compared with the Scottish Government’s estimates.
I think that we all accept that the provision will be demand led, and it is difficult to forecast what that demand might look like. However, I was a former member of the Finance Committee, and I know that it expects us to say more than that, so we have attempted to present our best estimate.
The forecast that we have set out is not unreasonable for a variety of reasons. My first point is that there is currently a low baseline of an estimated 12,000 adult carers who are receiving a carer’s assessment, so that must be our starting position.
The removal of the regular and substantial test for someone to be eligible for the assessment process will not in itself result in a large increase in the number of carers requesting an assessment because, as we know, the majority of councils do not use that test. Indeed, we have supportive quotes from local authorities about the removal of that barrier to assessment. Aberdeenshire Council told us that it will improve equity and consistency.
Not all those who decline a carer’s assessment will want to go through the new process. Some might—perhaps those who feel that the current assessment is stigmatising—but others will decline it because they are content to be involved in other procedures such as the community care assessment of the cared-for person. We want to challenge this view but some people do not perceive themselves to be carers; furthermore, some already feel supported—that is clear from the questionnaire returns. A number of those people will probably not request an assessment.
There was also a suggestion that the provision should be compared to free personal care, but that is not a fair or direct comparison. It is reasonable to expect that the take-up of free personal care is higher than the take-up of the new rights in this bill, certainly initially. That is primarily because those entitled to free personal care already receive local authority services—in many cases, in a care home. That makes it much easier to raise awareness of the new rights, and it means that the cohort of people who are targeted by the provisions are already in contact with the state.
We have done our best to come up with what we think is a reasonable estimate. I accept that it is an estimate, but this is a demand-led process and the committee will want as much information as possible. It is right for the committee to seek that through any financial memorandum presented, and that is what we have tried to do.
I want to move on to a couple of areas and then I will round things up before I open up the debate—I know that colleagues want to ask about some specific areas that I have been deliberately avoiding.
In their submission, the national carers organisations note that
“the costing for the duty in relation to the provision of Adult Carer Support Plans appears to be based on the model of a one-off intervention”
but that
“an outcome based support plan is a process, rather than a single event.”
The national carers organisations also state:
“it is important that all staff who carry out this task have the correct skills to do so and are experienced in working directly with carers ... additional training and learning may be required and will have associated costs.”
They say that because they are concerned that there might be cost reductions for ACSPs due to changes to the mix of staff grades and skills. In other words, they are afraid that the people who carry out those assessments will not be as qualified as perhaps they need to be. Can you address those two issues?
12:00
I will deal with the second one first.
I understand where the perception might come from. The point that we are trying to make is that, although we are implementing provisions that ensure that people have certain rights, we are not being entirely specific about how that might be delivered on the ground in each local authority area. It is for the local authority to determine how it implements the assessment process. That could involve, for example, working with third sector organisations, which we know happens in some areas in terms of carers’ assessments—there are some good examples of that happening on an extremely cost-effective basis. There is a range of options for the delivery of the assessment process.
On the concerns that have been expressed by the national carers organisations about unit costs, am I right in thinking that you are talking more about the cost of support than the cost of assessment?
Basically, the national carers organisations are saying that, although the costs have been assessed on the basis that there is a one-off intervention, we are actually talking about an outcome-based support plan. That means that the costs have been underestimated, because there are additional costs to what has been considered by the Scottish Government.
Again, all that we can do is work on basis of the best information that we have. The unit cost of support is based on research. Interestingly, given that the concerns are being expressed by carers organisations, that research was done by a carers organisation—once known as the Princess Royal Trust for Carers but now known as the Carers Trust. The estimates work for the provision of direct bespoke support, excluding information and advice, which is costed separately. Of course, one of the essential provisions of the bill is that there should be an information and advice service in each local authority area.
The unit cost that we have presented comes from a carers organisation. Again, we can only go on the information that we have available to us.
I appreciate that, but we all want the legislation to be successfully implemented. I will make one final point before I open up the discussion to colleagues.
There seems to be a distinct pattern throughout the financial memorandum. In terms of the unit costs, the average that the Scottish Government has assessed seems to be lower than the stakeholders suggest that it is. Similarly, in terms of the scale—the number of people who would have to be assessed—the Scottish Government’s estimate seems to be lower than the stakeholders’ estimate. In terms of the model, the Scottish Government does not seem to have assessed the full cost in terms of the on-going support that is required. Finally, in terms of training and staff needs, there seems to be an underestimate based on the fact that the people expected to do the work are less qualified than those who might actually do it.
There seems to be a pattern across the board—this touches on things that John Mason and others want to talk about. Stakeholders usually look at a financial memorandum and say that they expect that things will cost a bit more or a bit less, but the problem with this financial memorandum is that, according to stakeholders, the cost underestimates seem to be pretty consistent. When all of those underestimates are put into one package, we are talking about quite a significant sum of money. That is a major concern that I have about the legislation.
I can understand that concern. With good will, I would make the point that we have presented a methodology and presented where our estimates have derived from. However, in these critiques, I am not hearing people saying what they think that the costs will be and stating how they have arrived at that position. That is particularly the case in relation to COSLA’s criticism of the unit cost of the assessment process.
We will be reasonable. We are more than willing to engage in continuing dialogue with the stakeholders to hear the concerns that they have. We have done that thus far, and we will continue to do so. Of course, at some stage, they will have to provide some information so that we can assess what their perspective might be and see what the best estimate might be. I have not heard any of that so far.
Thank you for that. I will open up the session now. The first person to ask a question will be the deputy convener.
As you probably realise, minister, we met the bill team at our previous meeting on this bill and spent a bit of time talking about replacement care, and that is the area that I am interested in. The bill team said:
“COSLA and some local authorities have told us that it is unfortunately not possible to say whether replacement care benefits the carer or the cared-for person. If it benefits the carer, the charges would be waived. If it benefits the cared-for person, normal charging would apply.”—[Official Report, Finance Committee, 13 May 2015; c 61.]
I understand that, but I feel that an ordinary person reading or hearing it would find it frustrating and a little bit odd that we are getting bogged down in such discussions. Let us suppose that a carer goes away for a week. If it is a young person going to a camp or on some kind of holiday, that is great. While the carer is away, the person who is being cared for will probably need to go into a care home, although there might be other ways of dealing with their care needs. Can we not break through the question of who benefits? I think that it is primarily the carer who is benefiting, but maybe the cared-for person also gets a bit of benefit. Must we get bogged down in that?
I hope that we do not get bogged down in it, but you are certainly getting to the nub of the issue at hand. We are presently discussing that with COSLA and with the carers organisations to establish the best way forward.
There are regulations out there. What we are responding to is a concern from certain local authorities that say that they are having difficulty in interpreting those regulations. I am pushing my officials to make sure that I am getting the best possible evidence to see what the picture is on the ground, but we will continue to have dialogue with those stakeholders, with COSLA, with local authorities and with the carers organisations. To return to the convener’s opening question, that could result in us presenting fairly substantial amendments to the bill at stage 2, which could require a supplementary financial memorandum, which I know the committee would take an interest in at that stage.
The convener has already thanked you for the correspondence, and I appreciate it as well because it has clarified one of the points that I was raising. When we talked about waiving charges, I was not sure whether that meant only the local authority’s charges or whether it could include a third party’s charges. Your correspondence has confirmed that it would include a third party’s charges, because if a charge was waived, it would mean that the local authority would take it on and would not pass it to the service user.
That is correct. I hope that I have understood Mr Mason’s example; you can correct me if I am wrong. It is my understanding that the only interaction with the private sector in the process would be that a private sector provider might be commissioned by a commissioning authority—a local authority, most likely—to provide some element of care. I am not even convinced that the Parliament is empowered to demand that private organisations waive their charges, so it would be the commissioning body—that is, the local authority—that would waive the charges.
My fear was not that we would force anyone to waive the charges but that it would stop the cared-for person getting the care, and therefore stop the carer going away, so it would block the whole process. I am reassured to hear that that is an option.
It seems to me that, if the cared-for person has to go into a care home, and if their carer is a young person—presumably because there are no other family or friends available to care for them—the options will be either to bring in enough daycare to keep the person at home or to have the person go into a care home. My assumption is that those are the two main options.
That gets to the very nub of the legislation that we are trying to introduce. In those circumstances, we would be considering the young carer’s statement, which is an assessment-driven and needs-driven process for identifying their needs, and that will be different in different circumstances. It could be the case that, in some circumstances, alternative family members are able to provide some short-term care, although they cannot provide the long-term care that the primary carer who has gone through the assessment process can provide. There could be different options available.
Presumably, we could at least make an estimate. We could say, for example, that 50 per cent could be cared for at home and 50 per cent would need to go into a care home, or that it would be 75 per cent and 25 per cent.
Potentially, I suppose. We are starting to get into the realms of second-guessing where the process of dialogue with the stakeholders might take us.
But surely that would be more of a needs issue. We could discuss with COSLA and local government who would pay, but what if the person needs to go into a home because there are no other family members?
I suppose that an estimate could be made, but I should point out that the whole point of this bill process is to ensure that the system is very person centred and very much driven by individual carers’ needs. It is also quite hard to make an estimate because we presumably do not have all the available data, and people who are not yet in the system are going to be involved.
But we know, broadly speaking, what it costs to put someone in a care home.
But that takes us into the realm of having to look at where such care becomes replacement care and where we get into the waiving of charges. I am loth to start putting down estimates that could be of no relevance to the committee and this process.
It strikes me that we would know, say, the £500 cost for the care home, but we would still not know how that would get split up between the Scottish Government, local government and the family. We would know the total cost, but we would have to negotiate how it was split up.
Potentially, but I am not quite clear where your question is taking us.
Basically, my point is that we would know or could estimate some of the costs, but a separate question is who pays for them.
Okay. Your question touches on two areas. Some of this could come out in the assessment and what the person is entitled to, and we have set out the average unit cost for that where it touches on the waiving of charges. I suppose that the point that I was trying to make in seeking to be helpful to the committee was that if, at this stage, we tried to estimate the potential cost of any particular provision, it might not be all that helpful, because we have not yet worked out what the provisions will look like. That is why I think it more appropriate to provide that information in a supplementary financial memorandum.
Thank you.
Fairly late in the day at the previous evidence-taking session on the financial memorandum, Scottish Government officials said:
“The cost of replacement care could be in the region of £30 million across Scotland—that is at present prices.”—[Official Report, Finance Committee, 13 May 2015; c 68.]
Does that mean £30 million per annum?
I would need to clarify that absolutely, but I suspect that that would be the case.
I know that we are talking about £30 million, and I know from my experience on the committee that Mr Brown is always concerned about large sums of money for any specific provisions that we take forward, so I caveat my comments on that basis. However, I urge the committee not to get hung up on the £30 million as it relates to the area that we have just been discussing, because it encompasses a whole range of expenditure. Indeed, some of that expenditure is happening at this very moment. The £30 million is therefore a fairly broad-brush figure and is, perhaps, a starting point for us to analyse how we take forward the waiving of charges.
Okay, but my question was whether the £30 million is an annual figure.
I am sorry—I thought that I had answered that. Maureen Bruce will correct me if I am wrong, but my expectation is that you are correct.
I am fairly certain that that is the case, but we can confirm that absolutely.
If you could, that would be great. The financial memorandum makes a range of assumptions, but you must have done some work to be confident enough to state that £30 million figure publicly. Are you able to share with us either today or, again, in writing how that £30 million is built up?
Of course. Having committed to come back to you in writing to clearly establish whether the £30 million is an annual figure, I will commit to providing a further breakdown of what it relates to, if the committee will find that useful.
Definitely. The reason why it is so important is that, given that the maximum annual cost of the bill as a whole is somewhere in the region of £80 million, the £30 million is potentially the biggest single slice of that.
Absolutely, but I suppose that the point that I am trying to make is that the figure is not likely to be £30 million, because, as I understand it, that figure covers money that is already being spent just now. It encompasses a wider range than would be covered by the waiving of charges for replacement care, if that makes sense.
It does, and I am sure that your letter will clarify the position exactly. The committee is interested in what additional expenditure there will be as a consequence of the bill. If some of that money is already being spent, that is not expenditure that is being driven by the bill. I am keen to find out what the additional expenditure is.
12:15
That comes back to my point that we have not quite established the provisions that we want to put in place. It is contingent on us agreeing that we will take forward specific provisions on the waiving of charges. There are regulations in place at the moment, but we are responding to concerns that have been raised by local authorities. If we put in other provisions that require additional Government expenditure, we would provide that in advance of stage 2, in the form of a supplementary financial memorandum.
However, I take on board your point and I understand the need for the committee to have as much information as possible. We will try to break down that £30 million figure for the committee and we will clarify whether our view that it will be an annual figure is absolutely correct.
I take you to the table between paragraphs 79 and 80 of the financial memorandum—it does not have a number. The issue raised by the Scottish Government and others is that there is some dubiety in certain cases as to whether the key beneficiary is the carer or the cared-for person. If the beneficiary is the carer, charges can be waived, but if it is the cared-for person, they are generally not waived. I understand that distinction. In the table, you have estimated the number of adult carers who you think are likely to receive support in each of those financial years. My question is this: if those adult carers have been formally assessed under the system set up by the bill and the decision taken by the assessors is that those adult carers are entitled to some form of help and support, will it not be the carer who is the beneficiary in almost all cases, because that is the assessment of the professionals undertaking the work?
Yes, but the table relates more directly to the current provisions in the bill. The issue of whether replacement care benefits the carer or the cared-for person more is tied up with the whole issue of waiving of charges, which is not covered in the table that you refer to.
Perhaps I am missing something here, but if the adult carer has been assessed professionally as being deserving of and requiring a break or some other form of respite, surely the beneficiary is the carer. It is not as though someone has gone into care for a week and the carer has said, “Oh right, well I’m just going to take a holiday.” It is a formal assessment that the carer is entitled and so the key beneficiary is the carer.
If the short break was determined as part of that assessment, we cannot get away from the fact that the carer would be the primary beneficiary.
Is it a safe assumption that almost all the carers in the table—153,811 in 2021-22—will be the beneficiaries?
Not all those people will necessarily get a short break identified as part of their carer’s assessment. We are perhaps talking at cross-purposes. The issue is not so much the short break that they are entitled to but whether the replacement care that would be necessitated as a result—and this is what local authorities say they are having difficulty assessing under the current provisions—is of primary benefit to the carer or the cared-for person. That is what we are trying to bottom out. That is what we are talking to COSLA and local authorities about. We cannot escape the fact that a short break, which may necessitate the replacement care, is of benefit to the carer if that break has been identified as part of that carer’s assessment.
I accept that not all the carers get a break and there are various assessments. However, based on the current position, could you not make a working assumption on what percentage of people are likely to be assessed as requiring a short break, rather than some other form of respite, and could you not then use the same assumption, to work out what percentage of carers sent on short breaks qualify for the respite care to be paid for or the charges to be waived? There must be some data that you could use to at least estimate the figure.
We said in the financial memorandum that there will be an extra £2.36 million for short breaks, which comes from an assessment of the additional number of carers that we believe will be entitled to short breaks through the new process. We have therefore undertaken that assessment, Mr Brown, and that information is in the financial memorandum.
You have a figure for the number of carers entitled to short breaks, based on the current figures. For every 100 carers who go on a short break currently, you must have some idea of how many of the people for whom they care are entitled to the charges being waived and how many are not. That information must be available.
Yes. Ultimately—again, Maureen Bruce can correct me if I am wrong—it is local authorities that will hold that information, and part of our engagement with local authorities is to try to establish exactly what the picture is. Indeed, it is primarily for me, as the minister with responsibility for the bill, to try to establish what exactly is the nature of the problems and concerns that have been identified by the local authorities in interpreting whether replacement care is of benefit to one party or another.
Let us consider the table on page 46 of the financial memorandum, but on a slightly different issue. I have been discussing replacement care cover, but I will move on to a different issue. Some people have suggested that you have underestimated the overall number of people who are likely to be entitled to receive support. If we look at the figure in the table for adult carers for 2017-18, we see that your assumption is that 11,175 people will be entitled to support of some description, which is 2 per cent of the carer population.
Just to clarify, it is not so much about who is entitled to come forward to seek support.
You have said that it is those who are likely to receive support.
Yes.
So the figure in the table is not for people who come forward for support: it is your estimate of the number of people who will receive it.
Yes. It is an estimate of how many of those who come forward will be entitled to support.
No. You say in the table that the figure is 2 per cent of the carer population.
Yes. That is correct.
Right. You are saying that 2 per cent of the carer population will receive support in 2017-18, but in paragraph 81 of the financial memorandum you say that the surveys that you have read
“show that ... 4 per cent of carers ... said they receive short breaks or respite care”.
If your previous surveys show that 4 per cent of carers get that, why are you suggesting that the figure will be 2 per cent in 2017-18, at a time when a lot of advertising on the issue will have been done? I would have thought that the percentage in 2017-18 will be higher than the current 4 per cent if you are advertising the support and telling people that they are entitled to it.
The nature of the support is important, because what is being referred to is a bespoke form of support. We estimate that, at the moment, less than 2 per cent of carers have the carer’s assessment, so we are starting from a very low baseline. Even from that starting point, if 2 per cent of those who are currently assessed come forward for the new support plan or for a review for the new support plan, a range of general support is available to them, such as advice and information services. We know from pretty robust research that that is tremendously beneficial and that, from our understanding of what carers want, it is the second priority for them.
The first thing that carers want is that the services for their cared-for person are right and that the person is being properly cared for through their health and social care. When carers begin to think about their own needs, the second thing that they want is information and advice. That is why there is a commitment to continue to provide that through the NHS and through local authorities commissioning services from the voluntary sector, which has real skills in the area, with the local authority having a role in co-ordinating advice and information. That commitment is important for us. There is also the option of accessing local community services that are available to anyone in any community who needs particular support.
There are also financial estimates for the provision of bespoke support when the options that I described are exhausted. That can include things such as short breaks and advocacy that carers need and want but which cannot be provided in other ways.
You state that, in 2017-18, 11,175 carers will receive support; that is your projection. What is the raw number of carers receiving support in the current or previous financial year? If you do not have those figures to hand—
I do not know whether we have that information to hand—we might need to come back with it.
That would be useful; I just want to ensure that I am comparing the right things. It strikes me that, on the face of it, the numbers appear to be going down slightly, but you are spending £3 million a year on giving information and advice.
It is probably best if we try to clarify that in writing.
Okay. My last question is on what happens if the charges have to be waived and local authorities have to carry the cost, as it were. You are going to bring another financial memorandum to the committee. In advance of that, do we have a broad commitment from the Scottish Government that it will underwrite the cost?
We need to agree, and we are in dialogue with local authorities. If anything arises from that process and we decide to take it forward, the answer will likely be yes, but we are currently engaged in trying to work out what that may be. The process involves dialogue with local authorities, and part of that is about how we pay for the provisions for whatever is put in place.
Thank you.
I have one question, as Mr Brown has covered some of the areas that I was going to cover. That last point is crucial, because replacement care could end up being the biggest cost of the legislation, and it is not in the financial memorandum as it stands. I appreciate that the minister said that there will be a further financial memorandum to come. Could the issue of who would be entitled to replacement care funding be resolved in the legislation at stage 2 to provide clarity in that area?
Yes, I think that it could be. That is at the nub of the whole thing, and that is what we are seeking to do.
So you will bring forward a financial memorandum but, in addition, you may lodge amendments to the bill to provide clarity on the legal status.
Sorry, I should make it clear that we will present a further financial memorandum only if we lodge amendments at stage 2. I think that we would be required to do so under the standing orders of the Parliament if we substantially altered the financial commitment that would fall on Government—or indeed on any other party—as a result of the legislation. We would produce a further financial memorandum on the basis that we were seeking to amend the bill.
Just to be clear, are you seeking to amend the bill?
That is the working assumption, but we are engaged in dialogue on the matter just now. There are regulations at present that should cover these matters, but local authorities have made the point that they have difficulties with the provisions, and we are indicating our willingness to engage in dialogue with them.
Absolutely, minister, but we want to ensure that, if Parliament is to proceed with the bill, the funding is there to make that part of the bill relevant and to enable it to work in a meaningful way so that young carers can get the respite that they need.
Of course.
It is important for us, whatever the circumstances, to have an indication of what the cost will be now and in the future.
Of course.
Will the Government’s amendments be intended to clarify the regulations?
My other question is about what happens if you do not reach an agreement with COSLA. Will you just have to impose something, because you accept that the bill requires that?
It is not so much about imposition; I am trying to make the point that regulations and guidance exist at present. We are responding to a concern that local authorities have expressed to us, and we are reasonable people so we want to engage in dialogue with them. Ultimately, if that requires us to amend the bill to clarify matters further, and if that results in additional financial commitments from the Administration, we will not only lodge the amendments but present the supplementary financial memorandum. I cannot give much detail on what the amendments will look like, because we are engaged in an open process with those who have raised the concerns. In addition, it is crucial that we talk to the carers organisations about the issue.
Would it be fair to say that the Government itself has a clear view of its interpretation of the regulations? Although you are describing all this in terms of dialogue with COSLA, do you have a view on how the regulations should be interpreted?
12:30
That is why I am not only seeking further information from my officials but trying to get the perspective of local authorities. I am clear that there are regulations; I am less clear on their efficacy and how they are working on the ground. I want to establish the picture.
Again, I am happy to keep the committee apprised of where we are taking the work, although it might be the Health and Sport Committee that takes a greater interest in the specific policy provisions.
What is the likely timescale for all that? When do we expect stage 2 of the bill?
Let us try to get through stage 1 first.
You have the summer to do the work, basically.
Indeed, yes. We do not expect to conclude stage 1 until after the summer recess, so that gives us a period of time in which to continue the work. I should say that that work is of paramount importance. If we are going to take the provisions forward in the bill, we do not want to delay the process. Carers out there are keen and hungry for the bill to proceed. They have views on other changes that could be made to the bill, and we will seek to engage with carers organisations in that respect. I do not want to do anything that will delay the bill unduly.
Given that the stage 1 debate is not going to happen until after the summer recess, is there any reason why we cannot have a supplementary financial memorandum before that?
Can I reflect on that, convener? I suppose that we are still in the realms of assuming that a supplementary financial memorandum will be necessary, but if—and it is still an “if”—there is a need for one, I commit to getting it to the committee as soon as possible.
Okay—thank you. We will correspond on that issue. Do you want to raise any further points with the committee?
No. I will just say that I know, as a former committee member, that the committee takes its financial scrutiny responsibilities very seriously. If we can provide any additional detail, we will—as we have always done—commit to doing so, particularly with regard to Gavin Brown’s areas of interest. If there are other issues, convener, please do not hesitate to contact me again.
Thank you, minister. I thank Dr Bruce too. That concludes our public deliberations today.
12:32 Meeting continued in private until 12:36.Previous
Fiscal Framework