Chamber and committees

Thank you for joining us and for the evidence that you have given. I have been struck by a lot of what you have said. In particular, the comments about the immune system response of the economy really struck a chord. Thank you, too, for your written submissions.

I hope that the convener and the panel will indulge me, as I have a few questions to ask. First, I want to touch on the area of care that Emma Congreve has just highlighted. The Scottish women’s budget group has described action on care in the budget as “an opportunity missed”, and I agree. Will Dr O’Hagan tell us her views with regard to paid care—and, in that respect, her expectations of and views on the wage floor of £10.50 per hour and its impact on women’s inequality—and also unpaid carers, who have faced a significant increase in the number of hours for which they provide care. We know that that is having an impact on their ability to work in the workplace, and not least on their personal circumstances.

As you will know, the Government introduced a bill last year to double the carers allowance supplement in December. That uplift was brought in during the pandemic to recognise the additional responsibility. The Government said at the time that it had included in the bill provision for the supplement to be doubled again this year through regulations, but that has not been included in the draft budget. I am keen to know whether the panel have any concerns in that respect and what they expect the impact will be on carers’ ability to realise and enjoy their rights if the supplement is not doubled.

I would like to go back to a couple of other areas, convener, but that is probably enough to be going on with.

Thank you for that and for further—[Inaudible.]—immune system. [Inaudible.]—a really strong one.

My other question is about social security. Some 170,000 children receive the Scottish child payment through the bridging payment, but my understanding is that it has not yet been doubled. Will Chris Birt comment on the impact that not doubling the payment for that group might have?

I want to ask Emma Congreve about the report that the Fraser of Allander Institute published yesterday. You noted that the Scottish Fiscal Commission’s outlook is disappointing, with the tax take revised downwards. What is your analysis of the reason for the downward revision? What are the implications for the equalities budget? You described the effect of using social security versus—I know that it is not as simple as that—longer-term economic policy, and you talked about the impact that some employment policies have on equalities groups and the ability of people with protected characteristics to work. Will you say a bit more about your analysis, to help us to understand the impact of tax take on equalities and how much money we will have to address inequalities?

That is helpful. The point about it being a minimum period is useful. I know that people will appreciate that, so thank you for setting that out.

My next question is around the fact that there is no advocacy provision at the point of suspension. Judith Robertson from the Scottish Human Rights Commission said in her evidence that people with mental ill health might find it difficult to engage in the suspension process or during the review of their entitlement. Can you set out what the Government will do specifically to ensure that the system of suspension does not negatively impact on some groups? Can you also set out your thinking around advocacy and why a legal right to advocacy does not extend to suspension?

Thank you both for your answers. I am still not 100 per cent clear—forgive me—whether a person would be able to access advocacy at that point. I take the point that advocacy can be about entitlement, but suspension is also very much about entitlement. I understand that the rules on suspension will not be in play if the award is to be increased, but only when the decision is on whether an award is to be stopped or continued. Advocacy will be crucial at that point, so I urge the Government to make it clear that advocacy would be available to people at that point.

That is helpful. I have no further questions on that.

I take the point that the adult disability payment regulations will be coming to us next week. I raised the matter on the basis that, to try to prevent people pre-emptively stopping their claim and making a new claim within the Scottish system, as well as promoting it in the way that my colleague Emma Roddick pointed out, we could reassure people that there will be a system of prioritisation for those people who would otherwise have a guaranteed review. That is why I asked the question today in relation to these regulations.

Finally, how long do you expect case transfer to take?

I would very much appreciate follow-up information, including on what the resource will be, when it is expected to be in place and how many more additional staff or how much time will be bought by the resource. It would be excellent if the minister were able to provide that sooner rather than later.

Like other members, I welcome the provisions in the regulations on suspending payments, and I welcome that they will not be punitive. There is no doubt that that approach will be significantly better for people in Scotland than what has gone before. It will be much more beneficial.

I have a couple of specific questions. The longer time of 28 days for people to provide information, which my colleague Natalie Don spoke about a moment ago, is welcome. However, CPAG said in its evidence last week or the week before—I am losing track of time—that, in some cases, people would probably need eight weeks. Notwithstanding the impact that that would have on their finances, as highlighted by Natalie, what has the Government taken into consideration for the timescale within which people will be asked to provide information? How did it come to the conclusion that 28 days was the time period to choose, as opposed to eight weeks as suggested by CPAG?

I thank the minister and other panel members for joining us. I have a few questions on benefit suspension. My first question is slightly less to do with the specifics of that and more about the time that SCOSS has available to it for scrutiny. You will be aware that SCOSS has raised concern about the timescales in the regulations. Before I move on to my other questions, will the minister briefly update the committee on current plans for additional resources for SCOSS?

Thank you, minister and convener. I have no further questions.