Chamber and committees

You raise some important points, Mr Griffin, particularly on security in relation to an individual’s residential address. Perhaps Tony Romain can shed some light on that point with regard to discussions with stakeholders during the review.

I appreciate Mr Briggs’s point. Should the draft document that the Parliament is considering be agreed to, we will look at how that issue can be made clear in the training process. The member has raised a point of perception that is worth considering, and we will take it away and think about how we might liaise with stakeholders and colleagues with regard to training. I hope that that is satisfactory.

Correct.

As Tony Romain set out, the position is that the councillor should not get into a situation where they can be lobbied. However, in a quasi-judicial setting such as a committee session in which papers are considered or presentations are made by both parties, due process must be followed. Of course, the quasi-judicial nature of the process and arrangement lends itself to different perspectives being heard. Do you have anything to add, Tony?

I thank colleagues for their comments. I respect and appreciate the points that Jeremy Balfour has made, but I do not believe that the review and reporting obligations that would be imposed by the amendments in the group are required, and I will set out why.

The Scottish Government has recently published evaluations on the carers allowance supplement and the young carer grant, as Maggie Chapman alluded to a few moments ago. The evaluation shows that the supplement has gone some way towards meeting its overall aims, which are 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 of that, and we are progressing our work to deliver Scottish carers assistance, including the commitment to an additional payment for those with multiple caring roles. I cannot support the amendments in the group, because meeting the additional reporting requirements that they would create would require reallocation of resources internally in the Scottish Government, away from our work to develop Scottish carers assistance and away from on-going work to consider improvements to the young carer grant.

The funding is new. As I said, it is an investment of £20 million in a new service to fulfil the obligations in the 2018 act. We will make that investment over four years.

We will work with VoiceAbility on raising awareness. I will be pleased to keep the committee updated on our engagement with the charity as it develops its presence in Scotland and creates the networks that are needed to deliver its service effectively. That will involve working with a range of partners, which is what VoiceAbility has done in other parts of the United Kingdom, to raise awareness of the service. As part of the 2018 act, there is an obligation on us in that regard. As ministers, we are focused on raising awareness of what social security support in the round is available to people, as are Social Security Scotland and the wider Government.

On the point about the service being exclusive, when people request advocacy support with devolved benefits that are delivered by Social Security Scotland, that will be delivered exclusively by VoiceAbility. However, if people want advice, they will still be able to go to a citizens advice bureau or through other organisations.

Of course, the distinction between advocacy and advice is important. Mr Balfour will recall that we discussed it at length during the progress of the 2018 act.

Ruari Sutherland might want to come in.

To Parliament, do you mean?

The milestones in the contract relate to assessing performance and provision. As for outcomes, the Government and the Parliament will be watching to ensure that the standards are being met and the service is being effective for people, and that will happen in due course.

The fact that VoiceAbility will be present in all health boards is an illustration of its comprehensive geographical engagement across the country. There are wider considerations, such as collaboration with different organisations and the wider engagement on awareness that Jeremy Balfour rightly highlighted, and local government will need to be kept informed about and included in the awareness-raising process. We will, of course, engage on that. However, I highlighted the issue of a presence in all health boards as part of the considerations around the contract to illustrate the geographical availability and the fact that there will be a comprehensive service throughout Scotland.

I will let Ruari Sutherland talk about engagement with VoiceAbility on that matter, but I can say that it is committed to providing an accessible service, as it has done previously.

The Government is committed to providing accessibility in general when it comes to social security. Indeed, we have introduced local delivery teams in Social Security Scotland to help and encourage people to apply for benefits, and the same considerations, as you would expect, have been an important aspect of what we are doing here.