Chamber and committees

I will direct my first question to One Parent Families Scotland. Despite our best efforts, the United Kingdom Government is going ahead with the biggest-ever cut to social security since the 1930s by removing the £20-a-week uplift to universal credit. How big a blow is that to everyone’s efforts to reduce child poverty?

I am nearly finished.

If the Westminster parties finally do the right thing, we will ring fence the money to further enhance support for carers in Scotland. Once we pass the bill, we must work closely with carers as quickly as possible to devise the new system of carers assistance that leaves behind the inadequacy and inequality ingrained in the Westminster approach and responds to the real-world demands on carers in Scotland.

The minister will be aware that the first large-scale district heating system in Scotland was officially opened in my constituency last week. It uses water from the River Clyde to create green energy that will heat homes and buildings in Queens Quay in Clydebank. Will the minister outline what lessons can be learned from that pioneering system to ensure that it can be rolled out across Scotland?

I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate and put on record my support for unpaid carers, because I have long recognised what they do. My support is shaped by my daily contact in my previous job as part of the nursing team at St Margaret of Scotland Hospice in my constituency. I repeat my praise for the staff and volunteers of Carers of West Dunbartonshire and Carers Link in East Dunbartonshire, who provide outstanding support to carers in my constituency.

Throughout our communities, the contribution of carers is invaluable and inspiring. I said during the stage 1 debate that the care that they have given during the pandemic has been life-saving. It is often someone looking after a parent, relative or friend, and they see it as an automatic response to help someone who they love and care for. However, with that support, the person who they care for can live in their house, be part of the community and participate in the way that they want to.

This debate gives us the opportunity to put on the record our thanks to every single unpaid carer for their dedication, love and compassion. This period has been incredibly difficult for many in society, but many carers will have felt it more than others. The bill, if passed today, will, first, recognise the massive contribution that unpaid carers have made during the pandemic by doubling the amount of carers allowance supplement; and, secondly, it will get the money into the pockets of carers for Christmas, a time of real financial pressure for families.

I welcome that the chief executive of the carers group VOCAL said:

“We believe the Carer’s Allowance Supplement is a positive step towards valuing the role of carers as equal partners in care and recognising their crucial contribution to Scotland’s economy.”

We really do value carers. The carers allowance supplement is part of the wider support to carers that has been clearly set out and carefully budgeted for. I did not support the Opposition’s amendments, and it is disingenuous to suggest that we set future amounts of the supplement in that way, given the scale of what needs to be done, including the mitigation of a Westminster wrong that put carers on the lowest level of earnings replacement benefit.

The Opposition parties should bring forward their budgets for debate and scrutiny at budget time, and to do it any other way will be seen by many carers as a continuation of promises to them that have never come to fruition. Doubling the supplement payment for December means that over 91,000 carers will receive additional support, which I know will bring some relief. However, more action is needed, and I hope that colleagues across the chamber will agree to add their voice to calls for the UK Government to increase carers allowance, which is the lowest of all earnings replacement benefits. Surely the Opposition must have better aspirations for the UK social security system, and this really is a test of whether we are “better together”.

The supplement has fixed a wrong inflicted on carers for years, because for 45 years successive UK Governments have refused to align the amount paid with other earnings replacement benefits. Now, because our Parliament is listening, carers in Scotland have a 13 per cent increase and, in addition, will be £690 better off than carers south of the border. The Labour, Liberal and Tory parties have had all those years at Westminster to sort this, but refused to do so. In fact, from what I can see, their current Westminster leaders have never called in Parliament for the carers allowance to be aligned with the rate of jobseekers allowance. Again, we are left to mitigate their shameful policies.

Good morning, cabinet secretary. I welcome your appearance here this morning.

What is the most compelling argument that the Westminster Government has made for introducing UK-wide legislation on the matter?

I have more of an observation to make, convener. Looking at the start-up costs of the new system, I think that councils will lose quite a lot of income, so it is important that they are fully compensated. I also note that there is no guidance for the councils on how the scheme will be administered. Can we get a wee bit of background on that, too?

The ad hoc nature of the amendments is no way to proceed. I cannot support them.

I am minded to say that the amendment is unnecessary. The evidence that we heard at stage 1 and the submissions that we received showed that carers want the money paid as quickly as possible, and amendment 2 could create an unhelpful delay. Evidence from the Scottish Commission on Social Security indicated that there might be capacity issues.

Because there are delays associated with going down that road, I am not supportive of amendment 2.

I am going to carry on. It is important that we have meaningful consultation with carers about how we best support them through the new carers assistance benefit. Mr Balfour, as part of your Tory budget, you should bring forward a proposal and show how you would balance the books. It has been said that the supplement should go further. That could happen if the Tories finally did the right thing and aligned the value of the carers allowance with that of the jobseekers allowance. It has been like this for 45 years.

In response to Pam Duncan-Glancy’s point, I do not support the ad hoc nature of the amendment. The best way to proceed is through the Government’s £40 million spending commitment. The bill already contains enabling powers, as my colleague has already mentioned, and it gives the ability to increase the supplement during the budget process. Pam will know from my contributions in the chamber and in committee that, like her, I recognise that there is much more that we need to do to provide a decent social security system and to mitigate the impact of the Westminster cuts. Given the scale of what we want to do, that must happen through the budget process, and it is important that we develop the new system alongside and in consultation with carers.

As for doubling the supplement to assist with the impact of Covid-19, we are fixing a wrong that has been inflicted on carers for years. Since 1976, when, as was mentioned last week, the carers allowance was initially introduced as the invalid care allowance, successive UK Governments have refused to align it with other benefits. Carers will now receive a 13 per cent increase and, as a result, will be £690 better off than carers down south. I repeat that it has been 45 years collectively—

To go back to the point that Mr Balfour made, I think that he is confusing advocacy services with advice and professional services. Surely an advocate is not expected to make welfare rights points during a tribunal. We need to be careful about the different roles.

I certainly welcome the regulations. As the minister will know, the assistance that people need often covers many entitlements to a range of social security benefits. Is it the case that some people will need advocacy with regard to devolved and reserved benefits at the same time? Do you envisage that overlap getting in the way of the overall advocacy that a person needs?