Welcome to the second meeting of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee. Apologies this morning have been received from Natalie Donne and I welcome Evelyn Tweed MSP, who is attending as Natalie's substitute and invite as the first item of business Evelyn to declare any interests that are relevant to the work of this committee. Thanks, convener. I can confirm that I am a councillor at Stirling Council, and I am also a member of the GMB trade union. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed, Evelyn. Our second item of business this morning is a decision to take agenda items 6 and 7 in private. Are we all agreed? Yes. That's great. Thank you very much. Agenda item 3 is again a decision on taking business in private. Members invited to agree that consideration of our stage 1 report on the carers allowance supplement bill again will be taken in private at future meetings. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Agenda item 4 is subordinate legislation. The committee has been asked to consider the welfare foods, best start foods, Scotland amendment regulations 2021. These regulations increase payments and uplift the income threshold for some of the qualifying benefits under the 2019 regulations. I think that these updates to the regulations are welcome and I am pleased to see them. I also note that there was a manifesto commitment to remove the income threshold for universal credit over the course of this Parliament. There is also a question around no recourse to public funds as a qualifying criteria as well. I think that colleagues would be interested to know the Scottish Government's position on those areas. Do members have any comments to make at this stage before I suggest a way forward? In that case, I propose that the committee writes to the minister to ask for further clarification on those points. Are members content for me to do so? Excellent. Thank you very much. Our main item of business today—I am glad that we are able to rattle through to get access to that—is to take two evidence sessions on the carers allowance supplement bill. I would like to put on record my thanks to all those who responded to the committee's calls for views over the summer and acknowledge the tight timescale that we put in for that. I would also like to thank the clerks and the committee team for pulling together this work ahead of today as well. I know that it is a lot of work. I would like to welcome to the meeting our first panel who has joined us remotely. We have Celina Begley, who is the partner engagement manager for the Family Fund. We also have Fiona Collie, policy and public affairs manager at Carers Scotland, representing the national carer organisations, and Colin Toll, who is an unpaid carer from Lanarkshire carers. A few points to mention, a bit of housekeeping about the format for the meeting before we kick off. Witnesses and colleagues, please, if you could wait until I or a member ask you a question, say your name before speaking, just to make sure that broadcasting are able to make sure that your microphones are up. Please allow broadcasting colleagues a few seconds just to make sure that your microphones are on before you start to speak. Witnesses can also put R in the dialogue box in blue jeans, or simply, with a show of the hand, both myself and my clerking colleague will try to get to you as quickly as possible. However, if you do not feel that you have to answer every single question, if you have nothing new to add to what has already been said, that is okay too. We have a lot to cover this morning, so I would ask everyone to keep questions, answers and any follow-up questions as tight as possible. Colleagues in the room, please indicate to myself or the clerk if you wish to come in and ask a supplementary question. As I have already said, I will do my best to get across everybody as much as possible, and committee members online please use the chat box or WhatsApp if that is possible. It is tight for time today, but we will try to give all members an opportunity for questioning. I invite colleagues to ask questions in turn, and my first question will come from Jeremy Balfour. Thank you, convener, and good morning to the panel. I hope that you can hear me. The first question that I have is, do you think that doubling up of the money goes far enough to help carers, particularly as we have come through the past 18 months, or do you think that something else could have been done or should be done? I have my glasses on, so I cannot see who is where. I will start with Fiona Rennon. I think that it is important to say how much we welcome the proposal to double carers allowance supplement. It is a really important recognition of the huge contribution of carers. If we looked about it in our own response, the fact that there is a significant proportion who do not benefit, however, even those who did not benefit within our survey of carers, were positive about the doubling of the carers allowance supplement. However, I think that there are still a number of other things that could be done moving forward. In our response, we focused on developing a Covid recovery plan for carers, looking at carers financial situation, their health, their wellbeing, their employment and more, so that we do not exacerbate existing inequalities and impacts. As Fiona Rennon said, the parent carers that I spoke to were welcoming of the additional payment and the timing of the additional payment. We know that carers have additional costs throughout the year, but we know that winter and Christmas bring particular pressures. This year, from our research at Family Fund, we know that even those carers that we support who had savings prior to the pandemic are likely to have had to draw them and use them during the course of the pandemic due to additional costs and lower income. As such, this winter is going to be additionally hard for carers, so the timing of the payment is welcome and the payment itself is welcome. As Fiona Rennon rightly said, our research at Family Fund, which we have undertaken throughout the course of the pandemic, has taken into account the financial wellbeing, the health and wellbeing and the support that is available to the carers of disabled children and young people. We know that, although support in one area will be welcome and beneficial, it can only be part of much wider range of targeted support. An important point is that, although we are looking particularly financial support for carers on a wider front, we cannot completely separate the needs of the carer and the cared for person. We have to look at how we support for Family Fund. Our support is for families on a low income caring for a disabled child or young person, but the national carer organisations work with carers across the spectrum. We know that carers are facing and having to take on additional tasks in terms of caring, and there is an emotional cost to that as well as a physical cost. I think that financial support is welcome, but it has to be part of wider targeted support for carers involving support and health and wellbeing. It also has to be looked at along with the support for the care for person. I am happy to answer any specific questions on that. I would say that the next tranche of money in December 2021 is welcome, but it is delayed too long from the previous additional tranche of money. I am trying to reflect the needs that people who are in this situation will have. That 18-month gap is too long. The extra money is, of course, appreciated, but I feel that I am hesitant to use the phrase, too little, too late. That would be my instant reaction to it. The second aspect is that it only affects 91,000 out of a million carers—or 9.1 per cent—of carers. It should be widened in its scope to bring in a greater number of unpaid carers into an environment in which they can actually physically benefit from the money. Just to follow up with one final question from me. This is not a permanent fixture. Do you think that doubling up of carers should become a permanent thing so that, as you said before, if you are in every December when perhaps things are higher, that this should become a permanent thing? Would you like to see that in the primary legislation? Yes. We were hearing from carers in the survey that there should be a permanent increase in the doubling of carers-aligned supplements, so we would be very supportive of that. Just to reflect on what Colin MacDonald said, the point about it being later now, being 18 months after the previous double payment, I think that that is a very good point. Having the ability to have it doubled permanently would respond to that going forward. Given the particular demands that are on carers during the winter months and over Christmas, it is likely that the parent carers that we support would welcome that being a permanent element of support. We would offer them some level of security around how they will manage over those winter months, because we know that many of our families now have increased debt, and that is an area in which we would like to see targeted support as well. At the moment for this year, it is likely that, for many, the payment will be swallowed up by existing debt and outstanding bills that they have fallen behind on. However, for a future, certainly, anything that can offer carers security as to how they are going to manage and how they are going to look after their own health and wellbeing, particularly during the difficult winter months, would be welcome. I agree with both the speakers. It is just that, in the situation of being an unpaid carer, your time horizon that you are looking to survive on runs from month to month. It does not work on a year or a two-year basis. You have a very short horizon and you are trying to think, well, can I manage this? Can I manage that? Can I manage the next thing? If, as you say, there was a permanent inclusion in the budgeting of an unpaid carer, that would give them a relatively fixed idea of the income that they would have over a year, so it gives them more ability to look at what is ahead. I do not want to go on too long about that, but, as a carer, your horizons become shorter and shorter and shorter. You cannot look too far in the future. That is very helpful. Can I start by saying thank you to the organisations for the submissions, but also to the people you represent to unpaid carers across Scotland for the incredible amount of work that they have done in the past year and a half during the pandemic, but also before that? I know that it has been hard and I see the work that you do. It is clear to me that many carers are unable to use this payment to benefit their own wellbeing and, instead, they need to use it to pay bills or debt, as Selina Youve said, on household costs. As it stands, as an income replacement benefit, do you feel that the amount of money from carers allowance and the carers allowance supplement is adequate to cover the caring that is carried out and how does that make you feel? Maybe if we go in reverse order this time, we start with Colin, to Selina and Fiona. Good morning. The situation with the carer allowance is totally swallowed up in the general care. It was my mother that I cared for. It is totally swallowed up in that. It was not an allowance for me, it was help to get to the next period. In that situation, I found my needs increasing as my mum came towards the end of her life. That is why I think that any amount of money that can be diverted to the unpaid carers is extremely valuable. I do not particularly recall any periods of unemployment that I had in my life, but it seems that carers are less valued than other sectors that are giving assistance. Thank you very much, Colin. That is a good insight. I do not know that I can comment specifically on what amount would be preferred or needed, but what I do know is that carers that we spoke to said that one in particular said that the money just does not spend on you at all. We are not able to benefit. It is welcome, but I devalue just being able to have something for yourself. I am caring for three people. I may never get to go anywhere. We do not have anything to look forward to. I think that, from what carers told us, the additional supplement and the supplement itself are welcome both as financial practical support but also as an acknowledgement of their caring role. What we heard from carers is that what they want and what they need for society, just as Colin has said, is to recognise their role as a carer.  It is taking a long time for me to say that I am a carer. I need other people to recognise my role as a carer and value it. We cannot get away from the fact that an amount of money does convene or communicate the value that we put on things and the value that we put on jobs or roles within society. I think that it needs care for consideration as to whether that is sufficient in terms of providing practical support but also as an acknowledgement of the role that carers are undertaking. Caring often takes place in private spaces, but this year we know from those who work with carers that there is a cost both financially and in terms of the person's wellbeing. I think that we have talked for many years about the low level of carers allowance. The supplement has been really welcome in terms of bringing that level up at least to the level of other income replacement benefits. If you look at it for 35 hours a week of care, it is about £2 an hour. When you start equating that type of work to boards paid work, you start to see that it does not recognise our value carers in the way that we might want to in the future. I think that the points that Delina makes about carers as a whole, and I think that that was the point that we were trying to make around the idea of a Covid recovery plan. However, you could have such a plan at any point to look at how you address each of the different elements of the impact on carers and what is the thing that you do to try to improve their lives on those particular areas? The financial impact is one, but the physical and mental employment etc are others as well. We have to think about the long-term impact of carers being on carers allowance as well. For some people who are caring, it could be a very short period of time, for others it is a lifelong commitment. What that means is that individuals face that low income or perhaps the biggest part of their lives. Even when their caring role ends, moving into pension age, they experience significantly more poverty as well, because they are not able to save for things such as private pension or occupational pension to be able to top up the state pension. You are really welcome looking at carers in the entirety and looking at what opportunities there might be not just within carers allowance but within other passported benefits and within other areas to see how we can make an appreciable difference going forward. Of the people that you work with and of the people who get carers allowance supplement, can you tell us about the numbers of people who are living in poverty and do you think that all of the carers who are living in poverty in Scotland are identified by the people who get carers allowance or are they other people? I think that I would have to defer that to the professional people that are there with you. I am not sure of the exact proportion but certainly in our last family survey that we undertook in Scotland 66 per cent of respondents were in receipt of carers allowance. Our main grant fund supports parent carers who are on a low income. Those are carers who are entitled to means tested benefits such as universal credit or tax credits and so on. We are working towards a particular population in terms of our grant scheme. What we do know from our research and feedback from carers is that the information is one of the areas in which carers really struggle to access the information that they need in an accessible way. Even where there is an entitlement to certain social security benefits, quite often they are either unaware of that or unsure about how to go about accessing that. I think that, clearly, looking at the other submissions to the committee, there is clearly an issue around whether or not people feel that it is worthwhile applying for carers allowance. There may be a population that would be beneficial to them in terms of access and support but do not know that it would benefit them to apply. Perhaps that is an area that needs further consideration because where there is an entitlement and people are not accessing that, that is more than unfortunate because carers get little enough support and it is important that they access all the entitlements that they have. I hope that that answers the question to some degree. We have certainly seen where there is targeted support to enable parent carers to access the benefits and entitlement, for example, around the disability premium of child tax credits. You can see the benefits of that and we have had additional funding from Good Things Foundation to ensure that parent carers are aware of entitlements. Work like that is something that perhaps needs to be looked at to see whether there is a population that is not accessing all that they are entitled to. We can probably come back with some more data but I would say that it is certainly not touching all carers who are experiencing poverty. There are things that we do know that you are more likely to be caring for more hours if you live in an area of multiple deprivation, for example. There are things that we do know that we do not yet have or do not have the detailed information on. I think that that is the issue of hidden poverty. When we talk about households with disability and caring, some of the additional costs—because having an income is one thing—having a disposable income is a very different thing. When we did our family resources survey, some of the huge additional costs—we can start with care costs, but that is one thing—were actually costs of additional heating, costs of additional laundry for parents with a child with a disability. Sometimes there were things such as having to replace furniture, clothes and other things very regularly. Those costs are never accounted for and when we look at whether carers face poverty in the same way. There are a number of carers who simply do not qualify for carers allowance because of the earnings threshold. The earnings threshold is set at about 15 hours at the national minimum wage. You are talking about people who are on low incomes anyway, but if they earn up any more, they do not get carers allowance at all. There is a group of people who we know of. That is across the population who are working, but the work that they do in paid employment is not meeting the costs that they have as a household. I suppose that it is different measures of poverty, but we would be very happy to bring back information and send in information to the committee on what we have. That would be very helpful. Is that everything for me? Thank you very much indeed for that. The next set of questions comes from Miles Briggs. Thank you, convener, and good morning to the panel. I wanted to carry on the theme that you have all touched upon in terms of carers who are not entitled to payments. I wanted to specifically look at young carers during the pandemic and just to ask you about what you have picked up as your organisations. We know from some of the submissions that we have received that young carers cannot get the young carer grant if they are in receipt of carers allowance. Specifically, I wanted to ask about the experience that you have heard from young carers, but then secondly, how we potentially look at targeting support for young carers. Certainly, in terms of the research that we undertook regarding the impact of the pandemic on families of disabled children, we know that there has been a negative impact on the health and wellbeing of siblings of disabled children and young people. We also know from the research that is undertaken by the charity Sibs that they have undertaken some research around the experience of siblings in lockdown that further exacerbated issues that they would have around their health and wellbeing. In terms of looking at what is required going forward, that needs to be taken into account. Some siblings have a physical care and role, and some siblings are more around about prompting, supervision, emotional support, communication on behalf of their sibling and so on. Obviously, during the pandemic, particularly during periods of lockdown, we quite often were speaking to families who were perhaps in inappropriate housing and did not have access to play spaces and could have more than one child in the house. Many of the families that we support also have more than one child within the additional support needs, so they were trying to balance that. We know that it has been an extremely difficult period for families, including for siblings within the family who may be a young carer. They will need the support to reconnect with disabled children and young people. They will need the targeted support to recover. Many young people have missed out on really key social, educational and leisure opportunities, which would have opened up future opportunities for them. That is something that we have to, both in terms of the young carers themselves but in terms of parent carers that we have to look at. We have parent carers who are worrying about the impact on the disabled child and also worrying about the impact, for example, on siblings within the family who are now worried that they will not be able to, for example, as one family spoke to where the elder child in the family who is a young carer, they were concerned about how they were going to afford to enable them to go to university in the future. Those are really important opportunities. I welcome the focus as well on young carers and I welcome consideration of the particular needs of siblings of disabled and seriously ill children and young people. I think that the research that the national carer organisations of carers trust Scotland undertook with young carers and young adult carers reflected exactly what Solina is saying. Young people caring for longer, for more hours, with mental health getting worse, physical health getting worse, feeling less connected and being worried about the future. Obviously, the young carer grants a relatively small number within the young carer and young adult carer population. I think that the last numbers were about around 3,000 people had received a payment. Young carer grant is part of the picture, but I think that at the moment that that point about being connected, that point about really important transition points for young carers, whether that is making choices about what they are going to be studying at school going forward, if it is about going to college or university, if it is about work or if it is about continuing their caring role alongside or instead of that. I think that there is a need to look very closely at what support young carers need right now and what support young carers will need going forward, because I think that it is really important that that figure of 85 per cent is being worried about their future. There is some targeted work, whether that is employability, education or mental health, to ensure that we do not lose those young people, that they are not lost in the impact of Covid and the impact of the pandemic and all the changes that there has been. Obviously, the young people who are requiring care, that is something that I have not got experience of, but just to reflect back to Pam, I did not have any say about that. My difficulty during my caring role process was finding out what benefit, if any, that I qualified for, because I was a 58-year-old man. I did not have any experience of social security or anything like that, so it was haphazard at best, and it was only through guidance from Lanarkshire carers that I managed to get carers allowance. I will reflect on another aspect of Pam's question. Obviously, the younger dependent people, I could not contribute anything on that. Lanarkshire carers are based in my constituency in Erdogan Shots, so I can verify their excellent work and confirm that. Selina, I believe that you are looking to come back in there. Just to reflect on the findings of our research, almost nine in 10 families at 87 per cent reported that the pandemic had negatively impacted on the other children's health and wellbeing, so that is siblings within the family. The most prominent impact had been on their mental health with four in five families. 84 per cent reported that that had been negatively affected by the coronavirus pandemic, so I just wanted to make you aware of those significant figures. Obviously, that has affected many young people. One of the carers that we spoke to specifically around the bill and the carers allowance supplement and so on raised the issue of the age for the young carers grant. The carers themselves had funds within the family who were just a little bit below the eligibility age for the grant, and they felt that there should be consideration of the age change being lowered. They did welcome the support that is available through Young Scott, and her young people had accessed that during the pandemic and welcomed that, but she felt that it was not fair that they were missing out, given that they had really been affected by their siblings and their need for additional support, particularly during the pandemic. Thank you, convener. Thank you very much for those answers. We know that over 300,000 of our fellow Scots have become carers and taken up a caring role during the pandemic. It very much touched on what you said, Colin, although I asked about young carers. I think that there is a question over where people are able to access information about support. I wondered if any of you had views specifically with regard to support that would be available outwith the social security system. For example, carers breaks and respite care, which I know has been also hit during the pandemic. What sort of difference would that make? I know that local carers centres here in my own region are doing different things to support people. I just wondered what this national mix that you have seen during the pandemic actually looks like in that additional support available. I am happy to take in the same order, if that is possible. To be honest, during the 2019-2020 period, the additional benefits of respite care were not something that came into my mind. My sole consideration was my mum and making her life as comfortable and as rewarding as it could possibly be. I realised the importance of respite care probably four or five years earlier, but at the two and a half, three-year stage of my mum's decline, my importance was being with her. I spent two to three nights a week stemming my mum in 2019. That went up to six to seven nights a week in 2020. Wild horses would not have dragged me away. I think that we have seen some opportunities through the short breaks fund, the grants through time to live, through carer centres. Obviously, the support that Selena mentioned through Young Scot and those supports are available, but it is vital that we start getting back in place the supports that provide carers with a break. It is always the number one within any survey of the things that carers need is a break from caring. I think about ourselves. If you can imagine working a whole year with no break, but about 70 per cent of carers in the carers week research said that that was almost over a year, so that was in June. Over a year, they had been caring with no break whatsoever—not an hour, not a day, not a week. To be honest, that is not that uncommon. We are talking about this being Covid just now and the pandemic just now, but many carers do not get regular breaks. There is something about getting services back up and running now, getting financial support. The Government has put some financial support into that, which is very welcome, but getting support but getting breaks back up and running, and building up carers from the low level of health that they are at the moment from caring for so long. However, there is also that thing about moving forward. How do we ensure that carers have those regular breaks and that they are easily accessible? We know from our research that it can be many years before a carer even knows that a carer has impacts across the piece, whether that is practical support or financial support that people struggle on alone because they do not see themselves as carers. There is a lot of work to be done across the piece in raising the profile of carers so that, when someone becomes a carer, they recognise that they are a carer and they know where to go and get that first piece of information. Thank you. Weed is one of the organisations that supports the Scottish Government in the delivery of the short breaks fund. We administered take a break Scotland on behalf of the Scottish Government. Last year, we were able to support 2,660 carers through a take a break due to receiving additional funding. That was an increase of 23 per cent in the previous year. We know that, through research, through our outcomes reporting and through surveys, we know that breaks are vital to sustaining carers. It gives them something to look forward to, it gives them something to enjoy and build memories and it gives them something to look back on and to sustain them when times are really difficult. When we undertook our reporting on last year's take a break scheme, which was administered during the pandemic, I think that it was 89 per cent of carers reported that they could not have afforded a break without the support of the grant. Targeted support to enable carers to have a break is really important. There is a financial aspect to that because they are unlikely to have savings to enable them to take a break. They are likely to have debts. The targeted financial support is important, but, just as Fiona said, it also needs to be about the opportunities being available. Talking about the benefits of the supplement, some carers told us that what carers need are opportunities to take you away from your carer role, to be yourself, like extra leisure, recreational activities or a night in a hotel. We welcomed the voucher scheme that is going to be introduced as part of the tourism recovery strategy, but that is one element of that support. I could talk all day long about breaks. They are absolutely vital for carers, the cared for person. They take many shapes and forms and there is a spectrum of what a break looks like. There needs to be a wide range of appropriate support available to carers to enable them to take a break. 86 per cent of carers that responded to our surveys told us that their overall health and wellbeing had gotten worse since the beginning of the pandemic, and 38 per cent told us that they think that it will take more than a year before their lives return to normal. Amongst the other respondents, many were unsure when life would return to normal and I think that it was about 10 per cent thought that it never would. Being able to reconnect with one another outwith the pressure cooker that was locked down for many people to enjoy activities that benefit your physical and emotional health and wellbeing, either with the care for person or independently, is going to be absolutely vital in order to support people to recover from the detrimental impact of the pandemic? My question for the group this morning is about scrutiny. The second part of the bill is about the regulation powers that would be given to the Scottish Government to operate carers allowance supplement going forward. What view do Fiona, Selina and Colin have around how much scrutiny should be put to bear on that? There was a mixture of evidence in the written submissions about whether there needs to be maximum scrutiny, which should be the super affirmative going to the Scottish Commission on Social Security, or whether there need to be very little and the negative procedure. What view do the panel have? I would like to start with Fiona, please, followed by Selina and Colin. We sat in the middle on that. We feel that it should be affirmative that the committee should scrutinise it, but there should also be the ability to give it sufficient time for the commission to look as well, whether that needs to be defined as absolute. I will be honest that I do not have a strong feeling on it, but I think that it is a good practice to try to do that with every piece of regulation that goes on and legislation that goes through around social security. I think that it has a broad overview of not just one particular regulation but the legislation as a whole. I understand that this piece of legislation has been a pretty quick turnaround and I am trying to move that through the parliamentary procedure quickly, but as we move forward in a planned approach, if we can, we should be trying to ensure that it goes to the commission as well. We have been able to research in terms of carers' views. What I would say is that clearly there is a balance. It is important that carers receive support when they need it. There is clearly an urgency at the moment about enabling people to recover from the detrimental impact of the pandemic. However, we know that carers' situations are obviously affected by the pandemic. A key example of where something that is external has a huge impact and therefore it is important to be clear about what carers' current concerns and current issues are and what their current circumstances are. In order to be clear about that, there needs to be consideration of up-to-date research and what the current situation is. I cannot give a clear answer on carers' views on it, but I know that there is a balance to be struck. It is important that carers' needs have been met by additional financial payment, just as we said earlier in our responses. It is important that it is always on the agenda, and that there is a continuous and regular consideration of what circumstances are for carers in Scotland and that any intervention that is undertaken to respond to them is appropriate. In order for that to be the case, perhaps there needs to be some level of scrutiny. I hope that that makes sense. Absolutely, that does. Thank you very much, Colin. I believe that the parliamentary scrutiny is important for this because that keeps it in the public and the parliamentary's focus. I couldn't tell you the difference between affirmative and superaffirmative, but, as far as I am concerned, the more the Parliament talks about carers allowance, the more people every day will understand the importance of it to the carers. I am shocked by the figure of 1 million potential carers in Scotland and 91,000 yetton carers allowance—unpaid carers allowance. The more it is talked about, I think that the Parliament itself will come under pressure to address that situation and make it better to help the other 910,000 people who do not get receipt of carers allowance. Thank you very much indeed, Colin. That is very helpful. Thank you, chair. Good morning, and thank you for your submissions. They have been really helpful. The theme that I am covering is how to promote a better take-up of carers allowance supplement. You will be aware that some carers are in seat of universal credit of the full amount of any carers allowance to get, counted pound for pound. Therefore, it seems that some carers do not claim carers allowance because they do not believe that there is a financial gain to them. I feel that that is wrong in Scotland, as being in receipt of carers allowance means that the carers can get carers allowance supplement. Are you aware of carers that have been deterred from claiming carers allowance supplement because of the perception? Can you comment on what you have done to tackle the perception? Is there a role for carers organisations in promoting take-up? Maybe I will start this time with Selena and Fiona, and then Colin. Thanks very much. I do not know how specifically I can talk about this particular benefit in relation to take-up, but what we know, as I said earlier—I probably jumped ahead a bit there—is that for carers, given that they are often juggling many different things and that time is something that they do not have very much of at all, they often struggle to know what their entitlements are and how to access them. I think that there is absolutely a role for carers organisations to play because they have reach to many carers and sometimes carers may not have any other support network. There is definitely a role to play. I am sure that Fiona will have comments on the role of carers centres and so on. As an organisation, we are a grant making organisation, but we have recognised, over the almost 50 years that we have provided grants, that families have much wider needs.  Where possible, we assign posts to expert advice and information organisations. We have also done some specific work around uptake of disability living allowance and uptake of the disability premium of tax credits. We know that that kind of targeted support has success and for those who are not accessing entitlements and who they are able to, that can be life changing and it can really make a huge difference. If we are aware that there are carers who are not accessing all their entitlements and missing out on the supplement as a result, it is important that there is a strategy to address that. I certainly think that carers organisations have a key role in that. It is certainly an area that we are aware that carers are deterred from claiming carers allowance in these circumstances. It is about simplicity. If you are claiming universal credit for your household, it is sometimes just easier to do things in that way. It is often that carers do not realise about the carers allowance supplement, so they do not realise that there is an opportunity to be better off. We try to promote that information. I know that carers centres, whether workers who deal with welfare rights will do better off calculations with carers directly. That would be across the piece, not just with carers centres but with organisations such as Money Advice and Citizens Advice and local authorities welfare rights. It is something that we need to have targeted campaigns about that, because it is not simple. The fact that we are claiming carers allowance in the scheme of claiming benefits is relatively simple. Claiming universal credit is perhaps less simple, but it is all in one place, so it feels a little bit more simple. You start talking about crossovers, then it feels a little bit more complex to people. As Selena says, when you have so many other things on your plate, simple is best. Not just carer organisations but Government and local organisations such as disability organisations, Citizens Advice and local authorities. Together, we need to do specific campaigns to talk to carers about how they would be better off and how critically to get someone to help to do that. If you are leaving an additional task on carers hands, it is not really an incentive. We will need to help carers to do it. I would agree with what the two professionals said about it. As an unpaid carer, you are not given any clear signposting of where to go for help. My circumstances may have been different in the mortgage paid off and stuff like that, but there is a definite lack of clear guidance as to who could get this, who could get this, who could get this. As I was saying, it is language for carers, but prompting me to apply for carers allowance. I had a few questions, but it was more so about the role of other organisations than the role of carers in Scotland. Evelyn Tweed, have you got a question to come in here? Good morning, panel members. It is good to see you here. Thank you for all the evidence that you have already given us. It is really important that we understand and recognise the role that carers do in Scotland. It has obviously been a really difficult time during the pandemic and all that they have had to go through. I am particularly interested in how we pay out those payments. I was very interested in what Colin had to say about how carers have been struggling during this time. I am wondering what the panel's views are on weekly and monthly payments. That came up in the evidence that we received. Many thanks, Evelyn. I am happy to come first of all to Colin and then Fiona and Selena. I am conscious that we have about 10 minutes left for this session at the maximum, so if we can make sure that we are as brief as possible, please. I will try and be brief as I can. I personally do not feel that it would make a lot of difference for weekly as opposed to monthly payments. The advantage that you have of having an on-going benefit is that it lets you plan months in advance. Most bills come in monthly, so that would seem to be a logical tie-in, but to stress what the two professional ladies said earlier, if the carers allowance supplement became a regular annual thing, that would allow people to, for example, take the higher outgoings that they would have in the winter months, heating, electricity, gas and so on. Will we be able to calculate that into our own family budgeting? That would be my contribution to that. I will be brief. We have not done any specific research on this, so my answer will be limited, but certainly in terms of the timing of the payment in December, as I said earlier, it seems to be particularly welcome because of the additional costs over the winter months and Christmas, although the downside of that was that people were potentially inclined to spend it on additional bills and higher energy costs and Christmas presents and Christmas-related costs that would benefit others rather than themselves. A regular payment can help people to budget and manage week to week, but, for parent carers, the summer months are also a period when children are at home, young people are at home more. There are additional costs in terms of giving them meals during the day, higher energy bills and so on, so there are probably pros and cons, and we would certainly be happy to look at that in more detail with the families that we support if we are able to, but I do not get terrible much to say from the research that we are going to take into date. I think that anecdotally from carers, from the limited amount of survey that we have done around this, there is much fusiliness on having it as a regular payment and the value of having it as the two lump sums during the year. I think that I would put forward that offer as well with the family funding national care organisations. We would be happy to do a more detailed survey with carers on that question if that would be helpful. Thank you very much indeed. Does that conclude your questions, everyone? Yeah, I think that in the interest of time, we should be going with one. Thank you very much for your brevity, that is greatly appreciated. Out next, questions come from Emma Roddick. Can I also just echo my thanks for everyone giving evidence today? I have found it, and I think that everyone here has found it really valuable. One theme that I notice keeps cropping up is eligibility. In the early stages of carers' assistance, the Scottish Government has said that there will be limitations on how much eligibility can be changed and improvements to the application process and administration will be able to come earlier. Do you feel that those changes, including being more visible and providing various options for communication, will make a big difference to carers and their experience of claiming the benefit? I am sorry.  Could you just briefly restate your question? Do you think that the changes to administration and application process in carers' assistance early on will make a big difference to the experience of carers claiming it? Yes, I think that it will. If it can be streamlined in any way, if it can be simplified, if it can be—the whole process could be made simpler, that is bound to benefit the people who receive it. I just hope that it could be extended to perhaps encompass more people. That is it. I would agree with Colin that when things are more straightforward, and also if you build around that publicity, and obviously Social Security Scotland will have multiple ways to apply, the more ways you are able to apply the better. I think that it has a potential to make a difference. From our own perspective, we would still be pushing to see if we can get some quick wins to try and support more carers to increase the eligibility for those who are coming forward. I can think of two straight away, which is around the full-time study rule. I think that that is a significant barrier to young people particularly going to a university or further education, and also for carers coming back into the workplace or lifelong learning, but also the earnings threshold, because we know that people are—I think that the figure was around about £80 million in overpayments through the DWP around the earnings threshold because of the complexity. If there was something to be able to make that simpler, and to be able to talk about it, it should not be aligned with the minimum wage. If we are talking about, across the piece, fair work for others and paying the real living wage, it should be aligned to the real living wage. I understand some of the complexities, and I know that it would be difficult around that transfer period, but anything that would be possible to get some quick wins for carers and to increase and expand the eligibility would be very positively received. It clearly offers an opportunity, just as others have said, to further promote the benefit and to ensure that people recognise potential entitlement. We welcome the opportunity to consider those who have multiple caring roles, which is something that we regularly come across with the parent carers that we support, either because they are caring for more than one disabled child or perhaps because they are caring for a parent or a spouse. There is definitely an opportunity there, and anything that can be done to make it more accessible is welcome. Thank you, Sleerah. Emma, do you have anything to add? No, I think that it's been covered there. Thank you. I don't know if any other colleagues have any supplementaries coming in at this stage. That is very helpful. Thank you very much to the panel for your evidence this morning. I want to echo the thanks that were given by colleagues, not just for your evidence today, but also for the work that you're doing representing carers, but also Mr Toll's work as an unpaid carer. It's greatly appreciated, and your personal testimony and insight are very helpful for us in our scrutiny of the bill at this legislation going through. I want to thank you very much indeed for your time this morning, and I hope that you have a lovely day. I would like now to briefly suspend the meeting in order to allow for change of our witnesses. Thank you very much indeed. I would like to welcome us back to our evidence session on the carers allowance supplement bill. Welcome to our second panel this morning. We are joined by Ben Macpherson, MSP, who is the Minister for Social Security and Local Government in the Scottish Government. In the room, we also have Andrew Strong, who is the carer benefits policy senior policy officer in the Scottish Government, and, supporting remotely, we have Kate Thompson at McDermott, head of case transfer and carer benefits unit in the Scottish Government, and Stephanie Villogu, who is the solicitor at the Scottish Government. Thank you very much. I'd like to invite Mr Macpherson to make an opening statement, please. Thank you, convener. First of all, good morning to all committee members, and I welcome you to your role. I also welcome all committee members to their roles. It was a privilege for myself to serve on this committee between 26 and 28, and I'm very honoured to be back serving as Minister for Social Security. As together, we look forward to taking forward the proposals that are ahead of us in the next five years, and I look forward to working together with everyone on the committee. I would also like to start today by expressing my gratitude to the thousands of unpaid carers across Scotland. I'm an admiration for them, too, who make an immense contribution to our society. In the three years since we have had the legislative powers to introduce social security benefits, we have introduced 11 benefits, including seven brand new benefits, supporting the people of Scotland. The first of those was the carers allowance supplement. We invest more than £350 million a year in supporting carers through carers allowance, carers allowance supplement and the young carers grant. We are committed to supporting carers to protect their health and wellbeing so that they can continue to care, if they so wish, and also, importantly, have their own life alongside caring. We recognise the added pressures that carers have had to deal with as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. Many carers have had to step in to provide care that would normally have been provided by statutory services such as school and daycare centres. That is why in 2020 we delivered extra support to unpaid carers in receipt of carers allowance by doubling the amount of carers allowance supplement paid in June of that year, June of 2020, as part of the wider package of Scottish Government support to help mitigate the impacts of coronavirus. If Parliament agrees, the bill before us today will increase the amount of the carers allowance supplement to be paid in December 2021. An increased payment of £462.80 will be made in December to all carers allowance supplement recipients. That would not only mitigate the negative impact of the virus on carers and their own finances and wellbeing, but it will also help them to continue to provide this vital caring role. We also recognise that the pandemic has identified a need for greater flexibility in how we support carers experiencing changing circumstances. That is why the bill includes the power to enable ministers to bring forward regulations that could increase the amount of the carers allowance supplement for a future period. We are also committed to improving the carers allowance, and we are working with carers and stakeholders to develop our replacement benefit, Scottish Carers Assistance. I would like to close by putting on record my appreciation of the committee's work in securing an expedited timetable for the bill and note that, together, we will need to meet the various deadlines required of us to increase December's carers allowance supplement payment. Thank you very much indeed for your remarks, Mr McPherson. I welcome you and congratulate you on your new role. That is a very important remit that you now hold, and I congratulate you for your appointment. I invite members to ask questions now in turn. It would be helpful if colleagues could ensure that they outline who it is that they are referring their questions to, although I suspect that I would know. However, I would like to invite Jeremy Balfour to ask the first question, please. I welcome the minister. It is nice to have you back at the Social Security Committee again. We took evidence just before you came in, and one of the areas that we were exploring is budgeting and being able to budget ahead. Obviously, if this comes through as an act, it will give a double payment in December this year, and it also gives you power to think about future years. However, if you are trying to budget, that does not give you a particularly clear picture. Would you have the Government thought about just putting this in as a double payment every winter? If not, why not? If you were looking to bring forward regulations around this, what kind of timescale are we looking at so that people can put forward budgets? First of all, we know from our experience with best art foods that, in order to be able to make a payment in December, individuals like to make sure that that payment is made early in December, which is part of the reason why we have an expedited timetable in this, to make sure that we can deliver that. The important point to recognise, and I listened attentively to the evidence beforehand, as you would expect, is that the reason we were not able to make a payment in June was because of the timetable that Parliament had on the run-up to the end of the parliamentary term, and there was no capacity for primary legislation at that point. However, we also heard in the evidence session beforehand how for many the timing of this payment in December is very welcome, because of the budget pressures that people have at that time. The questions around future years, of course, we have the allocation in this year's budget in order to make the payment that is being proposed in the bill. Then there are questions for future years, which is why we are creating the enabling power. It will be part of the budget process ahead of us, beginning shortly for the Parliament as a whole, as to whether resource will be applied and set aside for the next year. That is a question for the budget process, and that is exactly why we want to create the enabling power in this act in order to be able to facilitate that should that be Parliament's decision? Obviously, other benefits, such as that, are a guarantee that will be paid in future budgets as well. At the moment, the Scottish Government is not guaranteeing that this will be a permanent fixture. It will have to be negotiated every year by the cabinet secretary of finance. To be very clear, of course, in the 2018 act, we committed to the carers allowance supplement, so that is guaranteed in every year and has been since 2018 and, of course, was the first benefit that was introduced. The additional amount that we paid in 2020, and we are seeking through this bill to pay again in December 2021 in this budgetary year of 2021-22, is guaranteed if the bill passes. For future years, we have created the enabling power for that to be able to happen next year, should that be the will of Parliament. However, the reason I do not think that it is prudent or correct to, at this point, set a position for years thereafter is that, of course, we are going to bring in Scottish carers assistance. To collectively, we will make decisions on what that will include and how that will be set. We are creating the enabling power that should there be a requirement and a desire from Parliament in order to make a payment again in the next financial year that we have the mechanism in order to do that. Of course, there will be questions around resource and adequacy in our collective considerations around Scottish carers assistance. Thank you, Mr Balfour. Next question is from Pam Duncan Glancy, please. Thank you very much and welcome to your role. I am sure that you have heard from this morning and also through the submissions that you have seen. You will have heard people say today that this is too little too late and that it is going to be getting swallowed up in paying the bills, particularly at the time of the year that it is being paid, which we understand is important, but a lot of it is going to be swallowed up in just paying off debt or paying the bills. What is your analysis of the adequacy of the supplement and will you consider increasing it? Our analysis is based on the ability for us to be able to deliver a payment and also the feedback that we had from the difference that it made last year, as well as considerations of course engaging with stakeholders and carers organisations on how much of an impact it made during the pandemic. I appreciate the concerns more widely around carers assistance and the level of provision that is provided in support of carers more generally. That is an important question for all of us as we work towards the introduction of Scottish carers assistance. However, that is something that we can feasibly deliver both practically through the mechanisms of Social Security Scotland and within the budget that has already been set for this financial year. We have found this resource and secured it in order to make the payment. I know that there are pressures on carers and family budgets, and that is why the Government is taking a range of measures and actions to try and assist communities and families across Scotland with those. However, it is an important further contribution to help to recognise and support carers at this time. However, I appreciate that, for some, there will still be pressures on their finances, and I am very aware of that. We heard this morning that there is a significant amount of poverty among not just the 10 per cent of carers who will access it, but the 90 per cent of unpaid carers who are unable to access it, so I think that it is incredibly important. Delivery, as you say, is also important. However, my understanding is that there are regulatory powers in the bill that allow you to set the rate at a higher amount, if you wished. One of the things that SPICE has shown is that the carers allowance supplement was calculated based on the rate of universal credit, as opposed to jobseekers allowance, as it currently is. It could increase the standard payment to £711.46. Given that your Government agrees with many of us that the uplift, for example, in universal credit, is essential to bring people up to enough money to live on, have you considered using the regulatory power in the supplementary bill to increase the carers supplement in line with that and making it £711.46? We have a good understanding of the impact of carers allowance supplement on carers through the evaluation that we published in December 2020, and we know that it makes a difference. The questions around what can be financed within this year are, of course, also part of the budgetary process. That is the question that differentiates the payment from future budget considerations, where we would be thinking as a Parliament about what we would set in the forthcoming budget in order to make those payments in the year ahead. We have had to secure this resource within the current budget and have been able to do that at the rate that we paid previously, which we know through our evaluation, has made an impact. Andrew, I do not know if you want to comment on any further points on that. In terms of the finance points, we are not making this payment permanent. This financial year, we are reaching over 800,000 people and investing £3.5 billion in the forecast social security payments that we are paying. That money will go directly to people in Scotland. Carers allowance supplement itself is already an increase to carers allowance, increasing it by 13 per cent, and the coronavirus carers allowance supplement is an increase on an increase already, specifically to help to mitigate some of the impacts on the coronavirus restrictions and their impact on carers. I think that it is just worth making that point, minister, just that this is an increase on top of an increase already. Further on that, if I may, convener, just to emphasise that this is going to be mean that those in the most intense caring roles who tend to be on lower incomes, as Pam Duncan Glancy understandably emphasised, will receive up to £694.20 more than the equivalent carers south of the border, so we are already stepping up and making that additional difference. I do not know if you have any further supplementaries on that. I understand that it is an increase and is a supplement applied to that, but as a measure of whether it will get to the carers who are providing the most care in the highest number of hours, or the people who are living most in poverty, the eligibility for carers allowance actually does not capture all those people. For example, it sits at the rate that is basically 15 hours at the minimum wage, and that is quite a low rate. I think that people on 15 hours of the minimum wage are also likely to be living in poverty, so it does not actually capture all those people. There are a number of people who are missing out in terms of caring hours because, for example, the overlapping benefit rule or the full-time study rule is still providing more than 35 hours a week care, but they are not able to access carers allowance or the supplement for those reasons, so it does not address any of those concerns—the poverty or the intense number of hours that that group of people are putting in. I think that those are all incredibly important points. Although the interactions between carers allowance and universal credit continue to be a key consideration in developing Scottish Carers Assistance, in terms of this bill, there are not the feasible delivery mechanisms in order to do that through this primary legislation. That is why we need to work collectively on the delivery of the new benefit of Scottish Carers Assistance and consider all those points around eligibility, which are extremely important. I do not know whether the committee is going to touch on Scottish Carers Assistance later in today's consideration, so perhaps I can come back to some of those points in due course, if that is okay. Thank you for allowing three questions. Thank you very much. The next set of questions are from Marie McNair, please. Thank you, convener, and good morning, minister. Minister, you will be aware that the carers allowance pays the lowest amount of all the benefits that the DWP defines as earning replacement benefits. For example, the personal allowance in jobseekers allowance is higher than carers allowance, and the jobseekers allowance rate is different views to calculate the level of carers of cash. Is the policy intention of cash about topping up the low-income carers to the level of jobseekers allowance, or is it to give cash payment to all carers in Scotland who are on DWP earnings replacement benefit? You will be aware that there are a lot of carers who, despite having an underlying entitlement to cash. What is the main barriers to cash payments being made to those carers? The passport and considerations that you highlighted are some of the main barriers. We are, of course, to be mindful that in the process of the 2018 legislation, one of the key points was that carers allowance supplement was a temporary measure in order to be able to provide assistance as quickly as we could as we continued to build up and deliver Scottish carers assistance. The fact that carers allowance at £67.60 a week is the lowest of all working-age benefits. That was, of course, part of our considerations around that and why we wanted to act. Under the overlapping benefits rule, carers allowance entitlement will typically be in receipt of benefits paid at a higher rate. Of course, carers can be in receipt of both carers and entitlement. The carers are an element of universal credit and carers allowance, and therefore the carers allowance supplement, so there is a helpful element there. Extending eligibility for the coronavirus carers allowance supplement, which was what we did last year under the coronavirus legislation, to include carers with underlying entitlement, would have required significant resources from Social Security Scotland, the social security staff within Scottish Government, and engagement with DWP to develop new processes. That is the real challenge and remains so. It would have taken longer to deliver it and would have needed to be supported by the DWP. That is why the priority at the time for Social Security Scotland was to make sure that people continued to apply and continued to receive existing benefits, so extending eligibility for existing benefits would have put additional pressure on the services that we would need. That is why we decided to make an additional payment through the carers allowance supplement to get that resource to people as quickly and as expediently as possible. Aligning the carers allowance supplement with receipt of the DWP benefit, carers allowance brings a lot of challenges, as you know, and getting usable information from the DWP on underlying entitlement to carers allowance is difficult. I know that the submission from the consultation from the Glasgow City Health and Social Care Partnership suggests that council tax reduction data could perhaps be used to identify low-income carers without relying on the DWP. Is that something that your officials have considered? As you will know, I was a public finance minister through the pandemic and considerations about the council tax reduction scheme were regularly on my desk and very rightly so. Of course, measures were taken to assist in that. The council tax reduction scheme, as you know, reduces tax liability based on assessment of household income and composition, characteristics and other factors, as you rightly highlighted. Carers can get carers premium added to the council tax reduction calculation, potentially meaning that they get more council tax reduction and so pay less council tax. The majority of households getting a carers premium in council tax reduction already on 100 per cent council tax reduction or close to it, and in practice increasing the level of carers premium in council tax reduction would not have a big impact on carers generally from analysis. We continue to consider what support across Government we can give to carers. The data point is that we have to work with DWP on those matters because of the considerations around passporting and making sure that day's entitlement is affected and there are unintended consequences of our actions. We continue to consider what data is available, but in terms of the payment mechanism and being able to do that within the law, we have to co-ordinate with DWP as matters stand. Bill is shadowy to move through the Parliament at a first rate than legislation tends to. I appreciate the needs to ensure the passing of the legislation in time to make the payment. What is your analysis of the impact that this had on the ability for carers and representative of organisations to effectively participate in the legislation? Important question and just to highlight, as I said in my opening remarks, we appreciate the expedited timetable and the engagement of all in that. We have engaged both through the course of the last year and with carers organisations on the positive effect of the additional payment in the coronavirus act to last year. There was wide support for this payment. I have engaged with carers organisations through the summer recess on those points, as have my officials. The need to pass a primary legislation in order to make the payment in early December, and we want to make it in early December because we want people to have it in good time for the festive period, means that, yes, we are going at an expedited rate, but given that the scope of the bill is very narrow and very focused about enabling us to make that payment, although we would of course normally want to engage in a longer legislative process, given the timing of the election, the start of the new parliamentary term and the hard deadline of wanting to make the payment in the early December, a reasonable course has been taken. Most of the social security regulations that come to the Scottish Parliament are subject to the superaffirmative procedures, meaning that they are subject to scrutiny by the Scottish Commission on Social Security. Why was that not the case with this legislation? Again, a very important question. First of all, I record my thanks to SCOS for all the work that they do and all the work that they have been doing in recent months in particular. Given that the changes that are being made under the regulations before us are so limited to increasing the supplement for a specific period, I presume that the question that you were referring to the enabling power is correct, Mr Chowdry. Given that the enabling power in the bill before us would mean that the regulations in order to implement that would be so limited to increasing the level of the supplement for a specific period, it was not considered that a further enhanced level of scrutiny provided by SCOS was necessary in order for that to take place, given the very narrow scope that those regulations would have. I think that from the evidence that we have taken this morning and the evidence that has come in written evidence as well, this payment is obviously very welcome and it is interesting the points that you make around the need that is there and also the fact that carers in Scotland are getting substantially more than elsewhere in the UK, so I think that this is to be welcomed and certainly I do. My question is a very practical one. It is around the two sections of the bill coming in at different times. Is there any reason for that? Is it a practical issue that you have for the two areas of the bill commencing at different times? Thank you, convener. Just for clarity, it is normal procedure to wait two months after a bill receives royal assent to commence the provisions in the act, as members will know, but given the need to ensure that the provisions in section 1 are enforced in time for the December payment, we have instead proposed that sections 1, 3 and 4 come into force on the day after royal assent, so as quickly as possible. As the same urgency does not apply to the enabling power in section 2, we were intending to commence those in the normal way, so that is the only reasoning for the difference of commencement. That is very helpful. Next set of questions are from Miles Briggs. Thank you, convener. Good morning to the panel and I welcome the minister to his position. I had a couple of questions with regards to eligibility and the work that the Government has done to evaluate those policies. The committee, and we have heard this morning for received evidence around there being no official estimate of the number of people eligible for carers allowance who do not go on to apply for it. I just wondered what independent evaluation has taken place of past payments and with regards to this benefit payment. There are wider questions for all of us around how do we collectively continue as we are obligated within the act, and the Government takes us very seriously to raise awareness with individuals and communities of what benefits they are entitled to and to encourage people to apply. Social Security Scotland does that on a regular basis, particularly towards particular milestones of applications closing or events where application windows open. You will have seen that in the activity that Social Security Scotland undertakes, and MSPs play an important role in raising awareness of that. We obviously take the evaluation of our policies very seriously. In Social Security Scotland alone, we have invested £165,000 on policy evaluations to date, and we are currently considering our evaluation programme to come. We will be providing more updates on that shortly. That is helpful. What would be useful is if you could provide the committee with what independent evaluation has taken place, not internally, if that cost is associated with independent organisations. That would be useful for us to have. I also wanted to ask, in terms of the bill, what reporting duty, because I did not really see any attach to this specific bill with regard to progress towards taking over and delivering other devolved benefits and whether or not that is something that you would engage with committee members on looking at. For clarity, are reporting duty on the development of Scottish care assistance, if you have been more specific? Both that, but the wider devolution of social security reforms and benefits? As members will be aware, the Scottish Government updates Parliament as appropriate and, as Parliament would rightly expect, on the delivery programme for social security Scotland. In terms of the progress towards Scottish care assistance, we have developed our overall aims for Scottish care assistance, and options for improvement. We are currently discussing them with carers organisations, and we are currently engaging with state costers, as Parliament will be interested to know, to carry out a detailed options analysis on what Scottish care assistance could and should include, and we will consult on proposals in the winter of 2021-22. That work is progressing at pace, and we will keep the committee updated as appropriate. Next questions come remotely from Evelyn Tweed at MSP. Thanks, convener. Good morning, panel, and good morning to the minister. I understand that some of the respondents were keen to consider weekly and monthly payments. However, I understand that we are looking at quite a short timescale. Is there feasibility to look at that at this point? Thank you. I noted with interest the differing opinions on the first panel on this issue. Again, that is a point of consideration for our future benefit of Scottish care assistance. However, at the moment, we really need to stay focused on the fact that window on this December payment and through the carers allowance supplement, that is the only feasible mechanism without risking the on-going delivery and considerations around the life benefits that we currently deliver on the roll-out of new benefits. It is a point of consideration, but at the moment we are just very focused on delivering on this December payment. Could I just press the minister, then? Is this something that we can consider going forward? Absolutely, we will consider it and I look forward to doing that with the committee. I would like to ask the minister, I understand in your letter to the committee on the 10th that you stated that we would not be able to make eligibility changes to carers assistance until after the end of case transfer. I would like to know when, first of all, you expect carers assistance to be introduced and, secondly, how quickly you expect that the case transfer could be completed? The on-going considerations around Scottish carers assistance are, as I specified earlier, around the fact that we are currently engaging with stakeholders to carry out a detailed options analysis and will consult on proposals in the winter of 2021-22, so that is forthcoming. The detail analysis process is also on-going with engagement with the carer benefits advisory group and engaging with other stakeholders and individuals on the discussion as part of that process, so it is as wide as engagement, as you would expect. The considerations also involve, as members will know, with the development of any of our new benefits significant engagement with DWP around passporting and also around case transfer. We will look within our consultation and the process of the development of Scottish carers assistance as to what eligibility changes we can potentially make here in Scotland without affecting the process of passporting and creating unintended consequences and losses for people. We will endeavour to transfer cases from the DWP as quickly as possible and for case transfer more widely. Members will be aware that Shirley-Anne Somerville updated Parliament in the spring on the position of working towards 2025 for case transfer. That is a very important process in safe and secure, which stakeholders understand has to be a priority for all of us because we need to make sure that nobody falls through the gaps and that people get their support and that, from an IT infrastructure perspective and delivery perspective, we build the capacity in the institution of social security Scotland, which was three years old yesterday and has developed at a remarkable pace and is delivering and serving well for the people of Scotland, but we need to continue to build that strength in the organisation because that institution needs to have a very strong foundation to continue to deliver for decades to come. We are moving forward at pace and looking to make a meaningful difference with the delivery of Scottish carers assistance. I appreciate the concern around making sure that carers are not going to be worse off based on being given the benefit. I understand that you have said that you are having discussions with the DWP. Do you expect that those in terms of the different options for carers assistance being treated in terms of reserved benefits will be successful? We have further conversations and discussions to have. Officials have good working relationships with their counterparts in DWP and we are grateful for the work of DWP officials in working with our officials in social security Scotland and in the Scottish Government in order to deliver for the people of Scotland and to bring our new benefits programme forward both responsibly and effectively. Those are also matters that Scottish ministers will raise with UK ministers and we will be meeting with UK ministers shortly. Those are all points that we will be discussing with them in order to get clarity on the question of passporting, not just with regard to Scottish carers assistance but more generally, and making sure that we are all clear on what the position will be. We will be happy to engage with the committee on those points again in due course. I would be grateful if I could just bring in Kate Thompson McDermott if you do not know if you want to say any more about that, Kate. Hi, thank you. I just want to reiterate what the minister has said. We are in regular engagement with our current counterparts in DWP with responsibility for carers allowance and with the DWP devolution team, so we will continue to work with them closely. We are currently carrying out our multi-quity-year analysis process on a range of options for making changes to Scottish carers assistance. Within that, we factor in a wide range of issues, including impact on passporting and disregard and interaction with reserved benefits system more broadly. We have a good understanding of what those impacts are likely to be. We are working on narrowing down to preferred options and proposals to take forward. We will, of course, continue our engagement with DWP and with HMRC to look at what can be achieved in terms of disregard and making provision for passporting and going forward. It is interesting to note the further discussions that are going to be had between officials between the Scottish and UK Government and the ministerial conversations that are still to be had. We have also extended an invitation to UK ministers and hope that they might be able to give evidence to us soon as well. I appreciate everybody's brevity this morning, and we have an opportunity for further questions. I note that Miles Briggs would like to come in, but if anybody else would, if they could indicate to me that they would like to do so. We have a wee bit of latitude left. I wanted to specifically ask around young carers, which I raised in the initial panel this morning. We know that young carers cannot get the young carer grant if they are in receipt of carers allowance at the time that they apply for the young carer grant. I just wanted to specifically ask what reforms ministers are looking to take forward around that and whether individuals receiving young carers grant should be able to qualify for CAS. Mr Briggs raised some important points. Of course, the introduction of the young carer grant was an initiative that the Scottish Government has delivered that is a change from utilising the powers that we have. You may or may not be aware, but we recently received an interim evaluation of young carer grant last week, so we will consider that evaluation. The points that are made by Mr Briggs will proceed as we do on a regular basis with all of which we deliver continue to consider how stakeholders and clients are responding and receiving the benefits that we provide and whether improvements can and should be made. We will consider the evaluation and keep the committee updated as appropriate. I appreciate that. There were also a number of points raised in the initial panel with regard to making sure that respite care is fully returned, that care is breaks, which I think attracted cross-party support when the initial carers bill went through Parliament. My colleague, Nenette Milne, tabled the specific amendment around care is breaks. I just wondered if you could update the committee on the restoration of that and funding specifically available for carers breaks. It was something that I really took on, that the first panel very much said how desperately needed breaks are for carers across Scotland. You will know that we work closely with and quickly with the DWP to put in place breaks in care easements for carers at the start of the pandemic, for example, and to extend them for as long as we felt and stakeholders felt that they were needed. Andrew, you have engaged significantly with carers organisations on those points. I would be grateful if you could add some more detail for Mr Briggs. To add to the earlier point, we have a Care of Benefits advisory group, which we engage with on a regular basis around some of the impacts of caring on people in Scotland. Specifically, during the pandemic, we have been making sure that we understand those experiences. In terms of respite, we know that access to respite has been a challenge for many unpaid carers throughout the pandemic, and we recognise the impact that it has on people's well-being. The guidance on adult social care building-based state services was published on 31 August 2020 and is updated regularly. The Minister for Mental Well-being and Social Care wrote to the Health and Social Care Sector on 7 June 2020 to encourage reopening of day services and to clarify the use of the guidance. Over 290 services have now reopened, and we continue to encourage others to reopen where it is safe to do so. Pam Duncan-Glancy, and then I have a question as well, please. Thank you for the opportunity to ask another question. Thank you for your responses so far. I am a bit concerned about the timescale that has been outlined. Is there anything that you could do to look at an alternative mechanism to try and make, for example, a Covid recovery payment to carers before 2025? There are a number of people who are ineligible for carers supplement, who are not going to be able to get any support in that time. I appreciate that some of the argument against the alternative approaches is time, but 77 per cent of people have said that they have not had a break this whole year, so they know about time and how they are spending their time. I think that it would be important for us, as a Parliament, as a committee, as a Government, to try and do something to put money in those people's pockets before 2025, which is a long way away to look at the eligibility for people. I am glad that you asked that question, Pam Duncan-Glancy, because just for clarity, when I talked earlier about 2025, that is, of course, where we aim to have case transfer completed. We are looking in the process of when we deliver Scottish carers assistance into what eligibility changes we can make and in discussion with DWP and others on that. I talked earlier about the fact that we will be consulting this winter, and that we have engaged extensively with unpaid carers and organisations that represent them already over the past five years to consider ways to improve social security support for unpaid carers. Through that work, we have developed a series of aims for Scottish carers assistance, a series of aims of what we could do, and a range of options for change. Those include considerations around the earning threshold, including removing the restrictions for those in full-time education and increasing the period of time when payments can continue following the death of a care person. Those are a number of points of consideration. Those are options that are currently undergoing detailed objective evaluation to make sure that we take forward the right combination of changes at the right time and in the right way to ensure the best outcomes for carers. The important point within all of what you have said in your question and what I have said in answer so far is the complex interactions between carer benefits and the reserve benefits system. That means that this is not the time in terms of this bill to try to place or rush through changes to existing carer benefits. That is why we need to do that through the development of Scottish carers assistance. We just need to make sure that there are no unforeseen consequences and to make sure that it can be delivered. If Parliament passes the bill before us today, we have both the finance secured and the delivery mechanism through Social Security Scotland to get the money into people's pockets in December. That is what we want to do. The considerations around how we support carers more widely, we need to consider them collectively as a Parliament in the development of Scottish carers assistance. Just to conclude with some information that I hope will be helpful in the answer to your question, at this stage we are continuing to make good progress with the launch of Scottish carers assistance. We have finished pre-discovery work with the DWP, making sure that we have a full understanding of current carers allowance processes. Of course, there is a whole question around processes and delivery. We need to make sure that agencies can successfully get resource to people and do that practically. We are, as I said, about to commence feasibility work in the next quarter on how we deliver Scottish carers assistance. Our aim is to begin to build for Scottish carers assistance in the new year. We anticipate a minimum of 18 months build, so all that work that needs to go in to make sure that the systems are effective and we have robust delivery. Given the complex interactions between carer benefits and the reserve benefits system, we really need to be cognisant of that. I hope that that reassures you that work is being undertaken at pace, and we are looking to make a difference for unpaid carers in Scotland as quickly as we can. Kate Thompson-McDermott, do you want to come on with any further points on that, if I have not covered everything that should be said? No, I think that you have covered everything that the Royal Ministry has not much to add, other than that we are also working on the commitment on the carers additional child payment, which we intend to deliver to part of the Scottish carers assistance. We are looking at how we extend that in line with the 2021 manifest commitment to those who are multiple caring roles for carers of any age. Our plan is to make sure that there are no changes since isolation or eligibility before the completion of the case transfer, the safety and secure transfer. We are looking at ways in which we can bring the carers additional child or carers payment into force much sooner. We are looking at a way to bring that additional work in I think that that is very helpful Minister and Ms Thompson-McDermott as well, to use an old phrase that is not as used just now, 2020-25 as your backstop for case transfer, but eligibility changes potentially and payments could happen before that is what you are saying. We are looking at all that very seriously and analysing what can be delivered and what changes we want to make collectively on eligibility in due course and when those changes can be made. We will keep the committee and Parliament updated as appropriate on those considerations and look forward to engagement on those important points in the period ahead. I think that the final question, unless anybody else is looking to come in, is about the interaction between carers allowance supplement and universal credit and the general awareness among carers about cash not being deducted from the universal credit. I am obviously aware of the obligation that the Scottish Government and Social Security Scotland have put on itself around ensuring that people are eligible for certain payments and are income maximisation. What more can we do to make sure that people who earn receipt of cash are aware that it is not going to get deducted from universal credit just to make sure that they are not hesitant in coming forward to claim what they are entitled to? I am going to bring Andrew in in a minute because he has had specific engagement with the sector on this point around should Parliament pass this bill, which we really hope Parliament will, in order to make sure that we are raising awareness of the benefits of the bill and to encourage application and uptake. One of the key considerations around that remains, as you have highlighted, the interactions between carers allowance and universal credit. That is also a key consideration in developing and analysing options for Scottish carers assistance. Andrew, do you want to talk about your engagement with the sector? Yes, so we are planning to do some engagement work directly to make sure that carers themselves receive information about eligibility for carers allowance supplement itself. We are trying to get across how you access carers allowance supplement, so we have to be in receipt of carers allowance itself. Obviously, some carers will be in receipt of things like carer credits, which are through the universal credit system. While we cannot give carers advice specifically on what they should or should not be accessing, we want to make sure that, as many carers as possible know about the options that are available to them in terms of receipt of carers allowance and therefore carers allowance supplement. We are preparing fact sheets and FAQ for carers and carers organisations to pass on to carers so that they can understand exactly how you access carers allowance supplement itself in advance of that payment. As always, convener, it is about how we utilise both Government mechanisms and statutory services and interactions with launch organisations and representative groups to raise awareness within their networks both proactively and within communal space or other means in which people interact or gather together and then also using proactive comms, whether that be communications, whether that be through social media and other mechanisms. I give a strong emphasis to both the Scottish Government and Social Security Scotland through our channels but also through trying to get others to amplify through their networks. We are doing all that we can to encourage benefit take-up in Scotland and to make sure that people get what they are entitled to because we want them to have it and we want to support them. Thank you very much and I am sure that we can do what we can in terms of our report to make sure that that is amplified as well. I want to thank witnesses Mr McPherson, Mr Strong and Kate Thompson McDermott and Stephanie Verlogue for their time this morning and answering the questions. I greatly appreciate it and will no doubt be in touch again soon as the bill progresses. Thank you very much indeed. We will now move into private for the next part of the session. Members who are joining us remotely please use Microsoft Teams, the links in the calendar, to join the next part of the meeting.