Chamber and committees

That is perhaps something that the first panel could have assisted with, but I will give an overview.

There might be a number of issues. You heard from Scottish Fire and Rescue Service colleagues earlier that some of the work can be done in the building, which can still be used. A variety of things can be done. The work might be to deal with water ingress that is having an impact.

I will ask Stephen Booth to assist in answering that question, and perhaps refer you back to the professional bodies that were on the first panel.

You touch on a very important point. I urge colleagues right across the Parliament to be very careful about the terms that they use when talking about RAAC. Members have used terms that would suggest that there is an imminent risk of collapse or that there has been a collapse or structural failure that suggests that we should have closed buildings earlier. We need to be cautious in our use of language in this area.

We are taking the issue very seriously and have been doing so for some time. I hope that the committee is reassured about that. We are happy to provide further evidence of how that work has been taken forward, not just by the Government but by others. However, some of the public discourse has been unhelpful and may cause concern.

We all have a responsibility to ensure that the Government is being held to account and that we are doing what we need to do—and the same is true for local authorities. However, it is not the case that, if people are in a building that has been identified as containing RAAC, they are in an unsafe building, and we must reassure them that the building owner is monitoring the building to continually check that it remains safe. If anything changes and the Institution of Structural Engineers guidance required mitigation to take place or a full building closure, that would happen. Indeed, it has already happened in some areas. It has not come as a surprise. In some parts of the school estate, work had already been undertaken before the summer and areas of the schools were closed.

That aspect of reassurance about the situation is very important, as is the reassurance that we will continue to stay in close contact with the Institution of Structural Engineers, the HSE and other Governments to ensure that, if anything in our approach needs to change or if there is anything that we think should change in the wider public sector’s approach, we will be saying that publicly.

We listened carefully to the previous session, so I will bring in Stephen Garvin, who can go through some areas of work that have already been looked at and say where the discussions are at this point.

We have tried to do what we can in the system while case transfer is on-going, and I have given examples of what we intend to do once case transfer is complete. There are priorities that relate to additional payments for caring for more than one person, for example. A number of calls have been made to the Government for carer support payment changes, and we have to look at those as we look at all aspects. We cannot make all those changes at once, we certainly cannot make them before case transfer, and the significant ones come with a significant cost attached. When the Government and the Parliament look at any changes, we have to look at how they can be funded.

I totally recognise that it is a priority for us to look at that and that there are calls for that, and I know that people are aware that such changes would not come without a significant cost. It is not a matter of their being a low priority; we simply need to do what we can in the short term and fulfil the priorities that we have laid out for after case transfer. We will then have to keep up a discussion about the other aspects—that issue is only one of them—that people would like us to bring in in addition to what the Government has already proposed.

Yes.

As with all devolved benefits, a great deal of work has gone into working with carers to ensure that we provide the information that they require and that we get the application form right. As the committee will be aware, all the benefits can be applied for online, by telephone or by using paper forms. An important difference in Scotland is that people can also receive assistance from the local delivery service, which will assist people in their homes or in a community setting if they require additional help. The local delivery service is very important because it is embedded in local communities and will have connections to local carers groups and to those who provide advice in the community. The service can be a bridge to a young carers group, or any carers group, that allows people to come in and help directly.

There is a recognition that some communities do not necessarily recognise themselves as carers and perhaps do not have the same expectation that the state is there to support them. We are keen to work with different organisations to ensure that our information is provided in different languages, that we have easy-read formats and that, particularly through local delivery, we make that connection. It is fine to have everything available in local community languages, but it is about what we do with that and how we make sure that the information is there for people to read and that they are supported. That is the benefit of local delivery. It is not just about having the information available; it is about having links with the local community to encourage people.

I hope that that reassures the member about what we are trying to do on that aspect.

Although Mr Balfour’s first point is an issue not for me but for the committee, I note it and recognise it from my previous times at committee. I will leave that point for the committee to discuss, should it wish to do so.

I recognise that the aspect relating to education settings is important. In respect of all the points that Mr Balfour has raised in the debate, as I said earlier, we will look again at that aspect. I am not in a position at the moment to give a timetable for when that will be, but I recognise that that has come up in the committee’s evidence and that we need to look at it. I do not see it as one of the aspects that requires to be looked at in the long term after case transfer—I hope that that gives a rough timetable, without making promises that I cannot keep.

It is about not just consultation with stakeholders, but the requirement for us to look at what changes need to be made in the agency’s programme and processes and what would have to be done to ensure that the system can take care of any changes, should we bring them forward. As Mr Balfour is well aware, none of those things is simple and none of them—when it comes to a change in processing—can be done overnight. However, I hope that that reassures him that I intend to look at that in due course.

Forgive me if I picked Jeremy Balfour up wrongly, but I think that he said that they will no longer get support. My understanding is that those people do not get support under the current carers allowance, so we are not taking it away. I just want to be clear.

I recognise that we have had to look very carefully at the different types of education. Different types of support are already there for young people who are in non-advanced education—for example, the education maintenance allowance, which is not available elsewhere in the UK. Other types of support are also very important.

However, as I have said, I recognise that there are differing views on the issue and that there are concerns about the fact that, although we need to look at the age appropriateness of care, people may be in caring situations, as Mr Balfour was right to say, and we need to be careful not to leave people behind as we go ahead.

I hope that I have laid out the rationale for where we are with the regulations and for the Government’s absolute openness to continuing to work with stakeholders—in particular, in areas in which views and opinions differ on what Government should do. We need collectively to find a way through that.

We are happy to provide the information on the definition that Mr Doris has requested. We will need to make any definition very apparent and easy to understand for those who are applying, so that we encourage people—particularly those at the edges, and especially when something is a bit new, as is the case with eligibility for those in full-time advanced education. I recognise that we need to provide information to carers, in particular, through carer support organisations as we move through the process. That work will be on-going.

On the point about the young carer grant, I recognise that issue. I am sure that the committee is aware that, in essence, the eligibility, in terms of the age at which someone begins to be eligible for the carer support payment, matches the situation for young people who are in full-time education who can access universal credit.

Among all the income replacement benefits, the one that is devolved to the Scottish Parliament is the carer support payment, but there are others. There is sense, therefore, in having the eligibility for all income replacement benefits start at that age. However, I recognise the point that Mr Doris makes on eligibility for the young carer grant.

When we were putting in place the young carer grant, we were not at the same stage of policy development in looking at the carer support payment, just because we were doing those things in different years. As we progress with devolution, we need to ensure that there are no unintended consequences—no gaps or challenges for particular age groups or parts of society that arise from the incremental programme that we have.

We are keen to ensure that looking at that aspect is part of our on-going work of evaluating the carer support payment and the young carer grant. Indeed, there may be other issues around the young carer grant and the carer support payment that we need to look at in order to develop a system that has no unintended consequences.

Again, I acknowledge the evidence that was given to the committee on that last week. The Government will look at what we can do to support young carers.

I recognise that issue, particularly with regard to the young carer grant and the carer support payment. As I said, we are very keen to keep that under review, and we will work with stakeholders on it.

With regard to the aspects around young carers, I mentioned in a previous answer to Mr Balfour some of the support that is already available, but I will give some examples of the support that can be accessed. There is the education maintenance allowance, and households with 16 to 19-year-olds in non-advanced education can continue to get support from reserved benefits such as child benefit, universal credit and child tax credits. There is support out there.

As I said, the education maintenance allowance is available only in Scotland. That is an important aspect of the wider support for our young people that sits outside social security. Again, I stress that we need to look at the issues in the round as we continue to develop the system. We need to consider what sits in social security and what sits elsewhere, and what is still reserved, and we will continue to work to see whether anything more needs to be done in that area.

I hope that the committee is reassured that there is still support out there for young people who are in full-time school education.