Chamber and committees

I will not, just now.

Analysis from the Legatum Institute that was published last week shows that the uplift prevented 840,000 people across the UK, including 290,000 children, from being pushed into poverty. A recent report from Citizens Advice showed that, as a result of the cut, more than one third of universal credit recipients across the UK would be in debt after paying just their essential bills.

Does that not just reveal the Tories’ thinking? They do not even recognise that a huge number of people on universal credit are already in work. Does Mr Kerr not even know that? He fails to understand the position—as do so many Tories—that people on universal credit face.

The Legatum Institute’s research highlights the need for the additional money. The chancellor said that the uplift was required

“to benefit our most vulnerable households”.

Those people are no less vulnerable now. If anything, with the rising cost of living and a national insurance hike on the way, they are in an even more precarious position than ever. Once again, on behalf of the Scottish Government and on behalf of the Parliament, I call on the UK Government to reverse the planned cut.

It is not just the Scottish Government and Parliament that have expressed their outrage and alarm at the planned cut. Calls for the lifeline to be kept have come from organisations and individuals from across the political spectrum. The four social security committees and the four children’s commissioners of the UK nations have written to the UK Government, too, standing up for the people they represent and calling for that lifeline to be maintained. From the Conservative Party alone, Baroness Ruth Davidson, Alexander Stewart and all six former work and pensions secretaries since 2010 have called for a reversal. Surely, Tory members do not think that every single one of them is wrong. The Scottish Government has also written to the UK Government on eight occasions throughout the pandemic to ask it to make the uplift permanent and extend it to legacy benefits. The unity from such a diverse range of voices—it is not common—that are urging the UK Government to reconsider should make it clear that this is not a question of partisan politics; it is about doing the economically, socially and morally right thing.

I am certain that colleagues across the chamber will share my grave concerns about the UK Government’s repeated refusal to conduct any impact assessments of the cut’s effects. Most recently, the then Minister for Welfare Delivery confirmed on 17 September that the Department for Work and Pensions had not analysed and would not analyse the cut’s effects; yet the Financial Times quoted an anonymous UK Government official confessing that it was well understood that the cut would see homelessness, poverty and food bank usage soar, which we all know to be the case.

It is hard to fathom why the UK Government has chosen to proceed with the cut without properly assessing its impact—so much so that the United Nations special rapporteur on extreme poverty described the cut as “deliberately retrogressive” and “unconscionable”. It is no wonder that he felt that he had no choice but to write to the Prime Minister to call for the cut to be reversed, while he noted that the UK Government’s decision to remove the uplift might fail to conform to international human rights law.

Perhaps the most sobering insight into what the cut will mean comes directly from the people who will be affected. Earlier this month, a recipient of universal credit spoke movingly to the Work and Pensions Committee about the effect that the cut will have on his family. He said:

“Before the uplift was introduced we were already on a knife edge to do with food versus fuel. The uplift sent some relief and for that to be removed is going to leave us with that big question again: do I go hungry, do my kids go hungry or do we keep the house warm?”

That is the terrible choice that too many families will face this winter unless the decision is reversed.

I remind everyone that the cut is not inevitable and that it is not happening because it is expected to improve the lives of those who will be affected—we know that it will not do that. A conscious decision has been made to remove support from people who rely on the uplift as a lifeline that allows basic needs to be met and them to live with a modicum of dignity.

The Prime Minister has repeatedly defended the cut by suggesting that taking money away from people who receive universal credit will encourage them to take up work—we have heard that repeated today.

It is a pity that the leader of the Scottish Conservatives is not staying to hear the concerns about the cut that his UK colleagues are going to make to universal credit.

We should not need to have this debate. We should not have to consider the hardship that the UK Government’s decision—[Interruption.]

As the member knows, we are going to double the Scottish child payment. We are going to give more money to families—the Conservatives are going to take money from Scottish families. This is the fundamental difference: the Scottish Government gives money to families while the UK Tory Government takes money away from families.

Across the UK—it is not just an issue for Scotland—people are facing a perfect storm of the end of the furlough scheme, a hike in national insurance contributions and rising energy and food prices. The cut threatens to compound those issues and deal millions of households a hammer blow of hardship. Analysis from the Scottish Government shows that the cut to universal credit is set to reduce UK welfare expenditure in Scotland by over £460 million by 2023-24. That will be the biggest overnight reduction to a basic rate of social security for more than 70 years.

At the start of the pandemic, the UK Government did the right thing in recognising that the standard allowance of universal credit was not sufficient to live on. The Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time that said that it was intended to “strengthen the safety net” that was available to people.

The member might do well to listen for once. More than a third of universal credit recipients are already in work, and it is, at best, doubtful that placing additional stress and hardship on them will make it easier for them to find and work longer hours.

The UK Government’s argument also ignores the estimated 2.7 million people who are not expected to work or who are expected to work more limited hours because of illness, disability or caring commitments. They deserve to live in dignity, too.

An adequate social security system is needed all the time—not just during pandemics. As such, it is essential to recognise that the payment level of universal credit was not sufficient before the pandemic and stands to be even less so after the cut. Years of a freeze on the UK Government’s benefits meant that universal credit had not kept pace with rising living costs, so maintaining the uplift is the absolute bare minimum that the UK Government should do. It should also take the opportunity now to fix the many shortcomings with universal credit that have been well documented for years.

It is neither practical nor sustainable for the Scottish Government to mitigate all the effects of the UK Government’s cuts, but we will do what we can within the powers that we have. As we rebuild from the pandemic, we have an opportunity to ground our recovery in changes that will make Scotland a more equal and inclusive society.

In 2020-21, we invested about £2.5 billion to support low-income households, which included nearly £1 billion to support children directly. We made more than £1 billion of additional resource available to help communities through the Covid pandemic and to build resilience in public services, and we continue to provide the support that is needed to help people through the perfect storm that we will face in the months ahead.

In the Parliament, we will go further and take ambitious steps to tackle child poverty, promote social justice and level the playing field for young people from low-income backgrounds and their families.

Douglas Ross has a vote, of course. Perhaps listening to the debate would help him to make his mind up about how he should vote on these matters.

We should not have to consider the hardship that the UK Government’s decision to cut universal credit by £20 per week will cause to 6 million people across the UK. We should not have to debate a cut that will push 60,000 people in Scotland, including 20,000 children, into poverty. We should not need to use the chamber to add our voices to the increasingly urgent calls for the UK Government to reverse that senseless and harmful decision.

Everyone in the chamber is aware of the enormous social and economic disruption of the Covid-19 pandemic. The number of people in Scotland who are in receipt of universal credit has more than doubled since the start of the pandemic, to around 480,000 as of July this year. The UK Government should already have done the right thing. As the Government with the full powers over universal credit, at a time of rising prices and costs and at a time of increasing poverty, it should already have said that it would make the £20 uplift permanent.

Will the member take an intervention?

Will the member take an intervention?

My officials are in regular contact with Dundee City Council, which is fully committed to delivering the housing first programme in Dundee. The council is investing in its housing first programme by bringing in specialist support staff and other organisations. For example, the council is funding positions to deliver gender-specific and youth-specific support as well as community social workers who will be embedded within the housing options service and will support housing first functions.

To date, the housing first programme in Dundee has been very successful, with 87 people starting housing first tenancies and receiving the tailored support that is required to meet their needs. Of those, 86 per cent are maintaining their tenancies.

Regulation of short-term lets is vital to balancing the needs and concerns that people and communities have raised with the Scottish Government, elected members and local authorities with wider economic and tourism interests.

Over the summer, we held a consultation on the legislation and the business and regulatory impact assessment. We are now reviewing the responses to make sure that we get that important legislation absolutely right. We have informed the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee that we will lay the licensing order in November. By allowing local authorities appropriate regulatory powers through a licensing scheme, we can ensure that short-term lets are safe and address issues that local residents and communities face.