Chamber and committees

We will continually review the service as part of the contract. There will be no formal process of parliamentary updates, but I will, of course, keep the committee updated and the committee, on behalf of Parliament, will be able to make inquiries of VoiceAbility about its performance. I can assure you that, as with any contract that is procured for services, we will continually review the contract, consider performance and ensure that the service provider—in this case, VoiceAbility—is not only fulfilling what needs to be met in our contract but meeting the standards.

Do you want to say anything more about that, Ruari? The contract contains some significant reporting aspects.

Pam Duncan-Glancy is right that, as a Government, we want to target our support at those who need it most, which is why we have committed to and brought forward the bill, which will enable us to pay a double supplement in December and give that added support. We have secured the budget for that.

I am sure that Pam Duncan-Glancy will appreciate that I cannot speak to the evidence that was given in another committee, because I have not seen it.

It is important to remember that section 2 will allow us the flexibility to consider the need for increases in future. I appreciate that that point may relate to other amendments that we will consider in due course. Any increase must be dealt with through budget processes alongside considerations of funding for wider support for carers. That could be improved by any UK Government move to increase the underlying level of carers allowance, which we would welcome.

With regard to amendment 3 in particular, the important consideration is the challenge of the resource that is available in this year’s budget. I cannot support amendment 3, because any further increase this year would require resource to be allocated from elsewhere in the budget that was agreed by Parliament, which would have repercussions in other parts of Government spending. We cannot do that recklessly; the matter needs to be considered.

I am grateful that, following discussions on those points, Maggie Chapman is content not to press the amendment on the basis of the arguments that I put forward. To allow responsible consideration of the budget in the round, we cannot agree to the amendment at this point. Therefore, I urge members to reject it, and to focus on making sure that the December double supplement for carers, which is provided for in the budget, gets to those who are entitled to carers allowance in good time.

Yes, it is, in terms of what the Scottish Government will fund. I ask Ruari Sutherland to talk about what happens if people act on a preference.

Improving support for carers was one of our first priorities with our new social security powers, and our carers allowance supplement, which was launched in September 2018, has increased carers allowance by 13 per cent. Since that launch, carers in Scotland who are continuously in receipt of carers allowance and carers allowance supplement will have received £2,270 more than carers in the rest of the UK. We have secured the resource—an important point—for a doubling of the December carers allowance supplement in this year’s budget. Therefore, we must focus the bill that we are considering today on ensuring that we get that increase to carers in December.

Amendment 3 would increase by £480.06 the amount of carers allowance supplement to be paid in December, which would more than triple the amount to be paid.

I appreciate Mr Balfour’s point in lodging the amendment, but it is not required.

The Scottish Commission on Social Security plays an important role in providing detailed scrutiny of draft social security regulations on which 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 that is provided to the people who are entitled to the benefit and within the wider fiscal context and limits of our budget. Those decisions are best suited to the Parliament.

As the changes that can be made under any regulations that are laid under the new power that we seek to introduce are limited to increasing the level of the supplement for a specific period or periods, we do not consider that further scrutiny by the Scottish Commission on Social Security is necessary or appropriate. The application of the affirmative procedure in section 2 will allow members adequate opportunity to consider any regulations in draft form. I note that the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee’s stage 1 report on the bill supported that position.

Considering all those points, I do not support the amendment and urge Mr Balfour not to press it. If he does, I urge the committee not to support it.

As I said, we have recently published evaluations on the carers allowance supplement and the young carer grant, and we will continue to do that as appropriate and in due course. However, the obligations that the amendments would place on us would take resources away from our development of Scottish carers assistance and the on-going work to consider improvements to the young carer grant, which is where our focus should be.

To respond directly to Miles Briggs, I note that, if the amendments are not agreed to, there is no intention to bring them back at stage 3, but I can commit to continuing to explore options outside the bill. I have talked about what we have done in terms of evaluation in recent times.

I am grateful to Maggie Chapman for the discussions that I have had with her in recent days, and for not moving amendment 4. As Jeremy Balfour has moved it, I will say that, although I am grateful for the debate that we have had, I urge members to reject all the amendments on reporting requirements, because they would detract from our work on developing the new Scottish carers assistance.

I have already mentioned the 100 co-location venues, full accessibility and a presence in all health boards, and the combination of utilising those venues, being present in those health boards and the collaboration that will arise means that support will be available to people, no matter their geographical location in Scotland.

On your last question, the answer is yes. I will bring in Colin Armstrong to speak about the procurement process. The procurement process was undertaken twice—once in 2019-20, when an award was not made because of the pandemic, and then again more recently. Throughout the process, Scottish Government officials engaged with current providers to give them all the awareness and information that they would need if they wanted to, for example, make a collective bid. However, that was not undertaken.

I will let Colin Armstrong come in on that.

Thanks, Colin. I will say a bit more. Consortium bids were welcome, but were not made. Two organisations with a presence in Scotland—Citizens Advice Scotland and Money Matters—made applications but, through the regulated procurement process and following an assessment under the appropriate law and criteria, VoiceAbility was assessed to have made the strongest bid and therefore was awarded the contract, as is appropriate.

We cannot speak on behalf of the City of Edinburgh Council when it comes to the choices that it will make—