Chamber and committees

I want to ask a couple of further questions on debt and potential new models. We know from some of the evidence that you have provided that council tax debt, for example, is sometimes one of the first that starts to build up and non-payment of council tax becomes problematic for people in managing their debt. I would like to hear people’s views on potential changes that could be brought forward to deal effectively with debts like that. I ask Lawrie Morgan-Klein to start, and then others can come in on the specific question of council tax debt.

It is about the concerns that were raised yesterday about energy costs. In one day, gas prices jumped 40 per cent, although the impact will probably be felt next spring. My question is on preventative models. Jon Sparkes touched on what we can do with preventative models for homelessness, but does any of the panel members have suggestions as to preventative models for debt management? Consumer advice is readily available online, but what work should we do in relation to people who do not have access to online services or those who have reading difficulties?

I will follow up on the questions from my colleague Marie McNair. The Scottish Government has pointed towards other potential benefits—just yesterday, we received a letter from the Minister for Social Security and Local Government with regard to the young carers grant. In your evidence, you have said that there could be 70,000 additional successful applicants for ADP. Are you doing any other work on potential future benefits and what those would look like?

How did the figure of 70,000 additional applicants come about?

The minister says, “Read the letter.” Basically, it is one paragraph with an excuse in the middle of it. The letter does not answer the questions that were asked in committee. It says:

“One of the key issues that we are seeking to address is the ... limited data ... available”.

The minister has said that the data exists and that the Government has done the work. Where is it? Why cannot Parliament see it?

Like the minister, I thank everyone in and outside the Parliament who has been involved in the passage of the Carer’s Allowance Supplement (Scotland) Bill, especially the organisations that have provided assistance and briefings.

The Scottish Conservatives accepted the reasons that the minister gave for the expedited timetable for the bill’s consideration, and we have worked constructively to ensure that unpaid carers receive the double payment in December ahead of Christmas. However, I put on record my disappointment that the bill has not provided the opportunity to progress at an earlier stage some of the improvements that all parties supported at the May election and, indeed, the constructive amendments in the name of Maggie Chapman and Jeremy Balfour that were lodged at stages 2 and 3.

I am disappointed in the Scottish Green Party. Green members seemed to lose their voice at stage 2. We proposed positive amendments that the Parliament has now rejected. That is disappointing.

The passage of the bill has presented a number of important areas in which there is cross-party support for reform to, and improvement of, the uptake and delivery of support for carers.

I welcome the letter that the minister sent to the Social Justice and Social Security Committee yesterday regarding on-going work to review carer benefits, including work on the young carer grant. Unpaid carers are the backbone of our social care system, but they often go unrecognised. I thank our unpaid carers—especially young carers—for everything that they have done, including the work that they undertake to provide care and love to people throughout Scotland. It is because of those efforts that, throughout the passage of the bill, the Scottish Conservatives have tried to progress further support for carers.

The committee heard many responses outlining concerns about the qualifying rules for carers allowance, including young carers not being able to get the young carer grant if they are in receipt of carers allowance when they apply for the grant. The committee report raised all those important issues with the eligibility criteria. I hope that the minister, and the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Housing and Local Government, who is still in the chamber, will be able to outline to Parliament at the earliest opportunity their approach to those issues and how and when progress to extend the additional payment to people who care for multiple persons can be delivered. There is cross-party support for that and I hope that that will be implemented as soon as possible.

As I outlined during the stage 1 debate, the Scottish Conservatives also support early action to extend payments for carers after a bereavement and a new support package for people who often have to give up work to care for a loved one. Carers organisations have supported that call, as we heard at the committee. Although the minister has not included that specific ask in the letter that he wrote to the committee yesterday, I hope that he will agree to meet me to discuss that important reform and how we can progress that change at the earliest opportunity.

I have written to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills to ask what support and reforms can be introduced for bereaved carers to access training and mental health support in particular. The number of young carers who have been impacted has increased during the pandemic, and we now need to look to their educational needs and at the attainment gap, which has grown wider and wider. That is an incredibly important issue, and I hope that we can find cross-party support for improvements and reforms.

We need to take a cross-portfolio approach to carers’ rights and the package of support that the country can deliver. I hope that ministers across Government will consider how they can individually add value in their respective departments.

As has been stated by carers and their representatives during the passage of the bill, it is vital that we recognise the importance of carers being able to access support. However, that goes beyond just financial support. We need to have in place a system and package of support for carers that takes account of carer’s individual needs and the carer as a whole. I hope that all arms of Government and local authorities, and all sectors, will look towards where we can add value to help support Scotland’s carers and improve their lives and future opportunities.

The Scottish Conservatives welcome the Carer’s Allowance Supplement (Scotland) Bill. Unpaid carers are the backbone of our social care system and it is only right that they receive an additional payment to mitigate the financial effects of the pandemic. I hope that many the reforms and carers’ asks that we heard during the bill’s passage will be heard by ministers today. The Social Justice and Social Security Committee took on board many of the views that were put to us by carers during our evidence taking. I hope that ministers and Parliament will consider how we can progress those at the earliest opportunity. The Scottish Conservatives will support the bill at decision time.

I was specifically referring to carers of multiple persons. Having had a long discussion about that in committee during the passage of the bill, Mr Gray will be very aware that there is just one paragraph in the letter on that point.

A report that has been published by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service reports that there were 33,425 charges of domestic abuse in 2020-21. That suggests that there was an average of 91 incidents of domestic abuse every day in Scotland, which is the highest level since 2015. The figure relates only to cases that were reported.

I know that the First Minister has taken an interest in that unacceptable situation. Does she agree that the Scottish Government needs to review the policies that are currently in place? Will she also investigate the possibility of establishment of family violence courts?

I am sure that the Deputy First Minister recognises that the UNCRC was ratified by the UK Conservative Government 30 years ago, in 1991.

The Supreme Court ruling points to a number of significant questions about the legal advice with which ministers and Parliament as a whole were provided during the passage of the bills. That is an issue on which the Parliament must reflect, given what the Deputy First Minister said about the former Presiding Officer’s advice to all members of this Parliament. Will the Deputy First Minister agree to publish the legal advice that ministers received throughout the bills’ progress?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Today might not be a good day for ministers but it is certainly not a good day for our Parliament and how we make legislation. The UK Supreme Court ruling calls into question the legal advice that members of the Scottish Parliament have received and, perhaps more so, the legal advice that Scottish National Party ministers have been given and have said that they hold when members are making legislation. In the light of that and the ruling that we have received today, what review or consideration will you and the Parliament undertake of what needs to change?