Chamber and committees

We had an important debate earlier. Amendment 2 is a bit nerdy and more technical, but it is important that we debate it and come to a view on it.

The amendment relates to how the committee and the Parliament should consider any regulations that the Government introduces, in due course, under the bill. We heard from members and the minister that there is a power in the bill for the Government to introduce regulations to vary the amount of the supplement.

Regulations often end up at a committee at a late stage and do not get the proper scrutiny. That is no criticism of anyone; it is just how the system works. However, if we used the super-affirmative procedure, it would at least give us time to pause and examine any regulations properly. It would allow a third party a valuable tool for examining them as well and would ensure that they had no unforeseen consequences. It would also allow us a bit longer to consider them.

The super-affirmative procedure would provide a proper check. When the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 went through the Parliament, in the previous parliamentary session, we all—including the Government and the Parliament—were keen to get it right because many of the benefits affect vulnerable people. Using the super-affirmative procedure for any regulations that the Government introduced would allow us a bit more scrutiny. It would make the Government think about them a bit more quickly, because they would have to be produced more quickly and they would go through the proper scrutiny.

I will be interested to hear what the minister has to say on that.

I move amendment 2.

I thank the minister for his reflections on my amendment. I agree with Marie McNair that there are capacity issues with regard to SCOSS that we, as a Parliament, will need to look at. In any case, the regulations that I am talking about are future ones. Perhaps the minister misunderstood me, as I am looking to ensure that any such regulations do not affect the December payment.

The minister has made some interesting points, which I would like to reflect on. With the committee’s permission, I will withdraw amendment 2 and see where we are at stage 3.

Amendment 2, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 2 agreed to.

Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.

Long title agreed to.

If you are not reporting to Parliament, what reporting are you doing internally? If reporting to Parliament would remove resources, what reporting will take place? If you are reporting internally, why can that information not be shared with Parliament?

I reassure Marie McNair that, as someone who has drafted amendments on advocacy, I think that I have a reasonable understanding of the difference between advocacy services and advice and professional services.

I want to go back to a point that was made by my colleague Miles Briggs. What would happen if I lived in Orkney or Shetland and I was looking for an advocate to come to a tribunal with me? I presume that VoiceAbility has no presence in those areas. How will it provide services there or in, say, Stornoway or more rural Highland areas? How many people will it have working in those areas, given that there might be tribunals in Inverness and Stornoway on the same day? Can I be guaranteed that the advocacy that I need will be there on the day?

The amendment is welcome. It will open lots of avenues for everybody who offers advice to the most vulnerable, so I support it totally.

I have a few questions about how the advocacy service will develop. If I give you three questions, minister, I hope that I will not have to come back.

My first question relates to funding. Is the funding that will be paid to the service new? Other organisations already provide advocacy services that get Scottish Government money. Is it new money or will the money be taken from advocacy services that already operate?

Secondly, how will parents and others know about the service? How will it be advertised so that people will be able to make use of it?

Thirdly, how will the changes fit into providing advocacy services for tribunals? Citizens advice bureaux, advice shops and other organisations already do that. Will the VoiceAbility service be exclusive or will people still be able to choose to go to another organisation and get funding for it?

I understand where the member is coming from. The Parliament debated universal credit a couple of days ago, and I have no doubt that the debate will continue. However, I am slightly concerned that these changes will mean that one group will get £711.46, while other carers will get nothing. Rather than picking on one set of carers, is it not better to deal with all carers? Is this the right methodology?

I am slightly confused by the minister’s response. On the one hand, we are told that the Government is trying to evaluate and do all the work to produce reports, but on the other hand we are told that producing a report for Parliament would take resources away from other work. It slightly feels to me that the Government is trying not to be open to scrutiny from Parliament and is deciding on the scrutiny on its own terms. For that reason, I believe that amendments 4, 5, 8 and 9 are important. I press amendment 4.

I must push you on this, minister, because there is a difference between having a presence in a health board and having a presence on the day of a tribunal. Is there an absolute guarantee that if I need someone to advocate for me in Stornoway on a Tuesday morning, there will be enough people to cover that and provide that service?

I am talking about the Scottish Government funding.

I am sorry, convener. We have heard a member say that an ad hoc approach is not the way forward, because it means that carers cannot plan. Do you not agree that, for carers, it is much better to have certainty instead of ad hoc decisions made at the whim of a minister? Moreover, all benefits have to be paid and administered, which means that in every budget process we will have to work out a social security budget that will have to be paid for.