Chamber and committees

No. You have made no effort to address the concerns of carers elsewhere, either.

I welcome the bill’s key aims, which can be summarised as doubling the carers allowance supplement to recognise the massive contribution that unpaid carers have made during the pandemic, and getting money into the pockets of carers at Christmas, which is a time of financial pressure for families. The bill is also part of the Scottish Government’s continuous approach to rectifying the long-term injustice of carers’ treatment by the Westminster Parliament. It is also an addition to the £149 million that has rightly been provided to 120,000 carers since September 2018.

I do not, however, support the ad hoc approach that the amendment takes to setting future rates of the supplement. The proper way to do that is through the budget process.

We need to plan, and it is important to get it right. At the end of the day, 45 years—

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—

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate about the need to cancel the Westminster Government’s plan to cut universal credit and working tax credit by £20 a week, although I am astounded that we need such a debate. What rational Government that had the true interests of the people at its heart would ever think that, at such a difficult time, cutting this lifeline to many people would be a good idea? The plan lacks compassion, it is cruel, and it will literally take the food out of people’s mouths. It will mean that many families will be unable to heat their homes at a time when energy costs are spiralling out of control.

I hope that this debate, along with the pressures from everywhere else, will make the heartless Tory Government see sense and end its plan to make the cut. However, we have certainly got one thing from this debate: it tells the people of Scotland everything that they need to know about the Tories.

As a member of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee, I can assure Parliament that we are extremely concerned about the cut. We have taken a united four-nations approach with other social security committees to call for its reversal. We heard from the Child Poverty Action Group that the cut will put more than 20,000 children into poverty.

Most people on universal credit are working, are unfit to work or have caring responsibilities. The Westminster Government’s attempt to minimise the likely impact of the removal of the £20 uplift has been found to be disingenuous and inaccurate. Thérèse Coffey, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, even suggested that people taking on an extra couple of hours’ work would fully mitigate the cut. That is, of course, not true, and it was a shameful attempt to spin away the misery and hurt that the Tories will inflict on our families. Bill Scott, the chair of the Poverty and Inequality Commission, pointed out in evidence to our committee that a person on the minimum wage would have to work for an extra nine hours, because of universal credit’s clawback system—of course, that assumes that work is available and that the employee can take it on.

Instead of using such misleading rhetoric—I note that there is more of that in the Tory amendment—we need the Tories to announce that the cut will not go ahead and that families will not have to face impossible choices that will inflict devastating hardship at such a difficult time. We heard in the chamber last week that the Tories were lobbying to have the planned cut reversed, but we see from their amendment that that was just more rhetoric to get them out of a tough corner. I advise them that we will not let them off the hook so lightly. This is a Tory cut, and if it goes ahead, it will hang round their necks for years to come.

While the Tories are lobbying, they should lobby on everything that is wrong with universal credit and shows a lack of compassion and concern—the five-week wait that forces families to choose between waiting for a payment and immediately going into debt, the two-child policy and its despicable rape clause, the removal of the disability premiums that exist in the legacy benefits, and the sanctions regime that penalises many, to name just a few things.

The Tories should also lobby on the benefits cap. The pandemic has led to a 115 per cent increase in the number of people who are impacted by the cap. Most of those families have children, and the benefits cap means that many of them did not see a penny of the £20 uplift.

It is tragic that we need to have this debate in Parliament. It is astounding that, at a time when a perfect storm is heading towards many people in Scotland, the Westminster Government is even contemplating such a cut. We must unite as a Parliament in order to have the loudest possible voice and urge the Tories to think again. Forcing families to choose between heating and eating is an absolute disgrace. The Tories must reverse this cruel plan that will inflict dreadful hardship on many of our constituents.

Good morning. Thank you for taking the time to give evidence to the committee. I will go back to Emma Roddick’s point about poverty proofing. As you are aware, last week, we took evidence from the Poverty and Inequality Commission, the Child Poverty Action Group and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. They suggested that there is little evidence that the Scottish Government poverty proofs all policies and budgets. Is that a fair comment?

What engagements with the DWP have your officials had regarding MIG?