Chamber and committees

The minister agrees with me that free prescriptions are a significant investment in improving health, especially when prescriptions cost £9.35 in England, during a cost of living crisis. People should not be deterred from accessing the vital treatment and medicine that they need. Does the minister share my astonishment that the leader of the Scottish Labour Party refused to back the suggestion that the abolition of prescription charges should be Labour Party policy when he was invited to do so by the First Minister in Parliament last week?

I want to go back to John Kerr. You said that you support the eviction moratorium. Are there circumstances in which an eviction should be allowed? If there are, what are they?

Thanks. I asked what the impact would be on landlords of an eviction moratorium. Do you want to add more to that?

Good morning. Most of my questions have been covered, so I will further explore the conversations that you have had with the social housing sector since the announcement of emergency legislation. Do you have anything to add?

I direct my final question to John Blackwood. What is the likely impact of an eviction moratorium on landlords? Do you have evidence on eviction moratoriums from anywhere that would be of interest to the committee?

Good morning, witnesses. It is great to see you all. I will cover the eviction moratorium. I pose my first question to our witnesses from Living Rent and Crisis. To what extent is the proposed eviction moratorium needed to protect tenants from the current cost crisis?

I take on board Mr Balfour’s point, and we will consider everything. However, maybe the member should look at carers allowance, which his Government could have upgraded but did not. We will take no lessons from the Tory party.

The cost of living crisis is caused not just by increasing costs but by decades of intentional reductions in social security support. Surely it is obvious to all that that needs to change.

The UK Government explained its U-turn by saying that the policy was a distraction, but it was not a distraction—it was a disgrace. That budget plan chooses to reinstate bankers’ bonuses but not the £20 uplift to universal credit, and it continues the austerity and welfare cuts that are leaving so many behind. There is no commitment to increase the benefits by inflation; I hope that what the member said earlier will happen, but we will see. There is no commitment to scrap the five-week waiting time for universal credit, to abolish the two-child policy—with its abhorrent, disgusting rape clause—or to U-turn on plans to increase benefit sanctions instead of filling bankers’ pockets. It is a missed opportunity to provide the help that people need to get through this crisis, and that will not be forgotten.

In Scotland, our focus is different. Although 85 per cent of the social security budget remains under Westminster control, we are working to maximise our interventions. We are building a system led by dignity, fairness and respect—no unjust sanction regime and no pointless private sector assessments.

The Scottish child payment is being increased to £25 per week, and eligibility is being extended to under-16s. Taken together, the Scottish Government’s five family payments are worth more than £10,000 by the time the first child reaches six and about £9,700 for subsequent children. There is no restrictive two-child policy here.

We continue to mitigate the effects of the bedroom tax and, now, the benefit cap, when we could be investing those resources elsewhere in our social security budget. We have introduced the Scottish carers allowance supplement, righting a wrong that was continued by Tory, Labour and Liberal Democrat Governments at Westminster. And we move at pace to roll out all disability benefits and further support to carers.

Those interventions, along with the rent freeze, the evictions moratorium and other support such as the Scottish welfare fund, are essential from a Government that gets the priorities right, and we should continue to look at what else can be done with our budgets and powers. But it is absolutely obvious that this Parliament needs the full powers of independence to cut out the cause of this crisis at its core—an arrogant Westminster Government with no compassion and no understanding of its impact on our constituents.

I thank my colleague Elena Whitham for securing the debate. It is much needed and I congratulate the Poverty Alliance and all anti-poverty campaigners across the country for promoting the event. I also take the opportunity to thank the many support groups, food banks and advice agencies in my constituency. I praise them all, including the Dalmuir community food pantry, the Recycle Room, Old Kilpatrick Food Parcels, Faifley food share, East Dunbartonshire Foodbank, West Dunbartonshire Community Foodshare, Clydebank Asbestos Group, the Big Disability Group, the East and West Dunbartonshire citizens advice bureaux and both councils’ advice staff. As a constituency MSP, I see what those organisations do to provide much-needed help and support and I am firmly on their side.

The debate is timely, given the scale of the challenge that faces many of our constituents. Just yesterday, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation in Scotland published its report “Poverty in Scotland 2022”. The report states that

“Nearly one in five households on low incomes in Scotland have gone hungry and cold this year, even before we enter the winter months”.

The report says this about the UK Government:

“their wilful abandonment of low-income households in last month’s budget is outrageous. Meaning without further intervention by them the situation described in this report will be worsened from an already terrible position by the oncoming winter.”

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation correctly asserts:

“This cost of living crisis is not just caused by increasing costs. The incomes of low-income households have been intentionally reduced by a decade of reductions in social security support”.

Surely it is obvious to all that that needs to change. But also, yesterday, we instead got a speech from the chancellor that shows he has no shame. His speech made little reference to the screeching U-turn, and there was no hint of apology.

Thanks. I have no further questions.

Thank you—it is very much a challenge.

In evidence, the Association of Local Authority Chief Housing Officers emphasised the need to listen to existing tenants before determining priorities. How did the Scottish Government consider the needs and priorities of existing tenants when setting its affordable housing supply targets?