Official Report 602KB pdf
Agenda item 4 is the committee’s consideration of the Carer’s Allowance Supplement (Scotland) Bill at stage 2. The Minister for Social Security and Local Government stays with us for this item—it is a pleasure to have you again, Mr Macpherson. I also welcome Maggie Chapman, who is here to speak to her amendments.
The minister is now joined by Andrew Strong, but I remind members that, as officials cannot take part in the debate, they are not named on the record. Stephanie Virlogeux is also watching from the public gallery. I welcome them both.
Everyone should have with them a copy of the bill as introduced, the marshalled list of amendments that was published on Monday and the groupings of amendments, which set out the amendments in the order in which they will be debated.
There will be one debate on each group of amendments. I will call the member who lodged the first amendment in that group to speak to and move that amendment and to speak to all the other amendments in the group. Members who have not lodged amendments in the group but wish to speak should indicate that by catching my attention in the usual way. The debate on the group will be concluded by me inviting the member who moved the first amendment in the group to wind up. The standing orders give any Scottish minister a right to speak on any amendment. Therefore, I will invite the minister to contribute to the debate just before I call the winding-up speech.
Following the debate on each group, I will check whether the member who moved the first amendment in the group wishes to press it to a vote or to withdraw it. If they wish to press ahead, I will put the question on that amendment. If a member wishes to withdraw their amendment after it has been moved, they must seek the committee’s agreement to do so. If any committee member objects, the committee immediately moves to the vote on the amendment.
If any member does not want to move their amendment when called, they should say, “Not moved.” Please note that any other MSP may move such an amendment. If no one moves the amendment, I will immediately call the next amendment on the marshalled list.
Only committee members are allowed to vote. Voting in any division is by a show of hands. It is important that members keep their hands clearly raised until the clerk has recorded the vote.
The convener has a personal vote as a committee member and a casting vote in the event of a tie. It is entirely at my discretion as the convener how to use the casting vote. There are no agreed conventions on that point. However, if the casting vote is used, I intend to indicate the basis on which I will use it immediately before doing so.
The committee is required to indicate formally that it has considered and agreed to each section and schedule of the bill. Therefore, I will put a question on each section at the appropriate point.
If everybody is content with where we are after that brain dump—I am conscious that we had to get through that because this is the first time that we have considered stage 2—we will move to the consideration of amendments.
Section 1—Increased amount of carer’s allowance supplement in respect of the period of 1 October 2021 to 31 March 2022
Amendment 3, in the name of Maggie Chapman, is in a group on its own.
Thank you for taking the time to go through the procedure, convener. It is my first time at stage 2.
Carers fulfil an essential role throughout Scotland and the pandemic has placed them under unprecedented strain. That is why I warmly welcomed the bill last week. It will help more than 90,000 carers this winter by doubling the carers allowance payment. As there is no Green member on the committee, I wanted to place on record the Scottish Green Party’s support for the increase and I am grateful to the convener for giving me the chance to do that.
However, doubling the payment is only part of what we need to do to ensure that the social security system recognises and values the work that carers do. As with universal credit and other benefits, we have our work cut out for us. I welcome the willingness of the Scottish Government and others to work together to do better.
Over the past couple of weeks, I have had useful meetings with the Scottish Government about support for carers, including young carers. My meeting this week with the Minister for Social Security and Local Government was particularly helpful. Those conversations have been wide ranging, and I thank the minister for his time, for the information and assurances that he has given and for the discussions that we will continue to have.
On that basis, I am content that there are other avenues to explore and by which we can take action on the issues that my probing amendments sought to address. Therefore, I will not press amendment 3 or move any of the other amendments in my name.
I move amendment 3.
Forgive me if this is the incorrect moment to say this, but amendment 3 is really good and gives us a strong opportunity to send a signal to carers who have worked day and night throughout the pandemic and before that. We must not forget that unpaid carers provided care long before the pandemic. However, over the past year in particular, they have been doing that under a lot of stress and strain, and many have been plunged into poverty.
09:45
I understand where the member is coming from. The Parliament debated universal credit a couple of days ago, and I have no doubt that the debate will continue. However, I am slightly concerned that these changes will mean that one group will get £711.46, while other carers will get nothing. Rather than picking on one set of carers, is it not better to deal with all carers? Is this the right methodology?
I take the member’s point. You are right about the number of people who will miss out. Carers allowance supplement is available to only one in 10 people who provide unpaid care across Scotland, so it is correct to say that it does not meet the needs of all unpaid carers in Scotland. However, no element of the bill meets the needs of all unpaid carers in Scotland. Applying the uplift at this point recognises that the people who are captured by the bill—the people who will get the supplement—get a supplement that is representative of the amount of money that we, as a Parliament, this week agreed was a better reflection of the amount of money that people need to live on. We have an opportunity today to apply that uplift for unpaid carers, which is why it is important to use that mechanism.
The Government and almost all parties around the table—at least the ones in opposition—agreed that that uplift was essential, and I think that we need to do all that we can. You ask whether I feel that it is the best mechanism. It is not the best mechanism, because it is missing nine in 10 carers. However, it is the only mechanism that we have and, as the Government has said, it is the fastest mechanism that we have right now to put money in unpaid carers’ pockets. That is why I strongly support this amendment, and, if it is possible for me to do so, I will press the amendment.
Improving support for carers was one of our first priorities with our new social security powers, and our carers allowance supplement, which was launched in September 2018, has increased carers allowance by 13 per cent. Since that launch, carers in Scotland who are continuously in receipt of carers allowance and carers allowance supplement will have received £2,270 more than carers in the rest of the UK. We have secured the resource—an important point—for a doubling of the December carers allowance supplement in this year’s budget. Therefore, we must focus the bill that we are considering today on ensuring that we get that increase to carers in December.
Amendment 3 would increase by £480.06 the amount of carers allowance supplement to be paid in December, which would more than triple the amount to be paid.
Do you think that the current amount of support that unpaid carers get from the state, through either the supplement or carers allowance, is sufficient to keep them out of poverty?
There is more that we need to consider and do for carers, as we look to bring in Scottish carers assistance, but we also have to work within the fixed budget of the Scottish Parliament. It is important to consider the fact that, in order to deliver that, we are working within a budget that was set in the spring.
I appreciate the minister taking a second intervention. You are right to point out that it is based on a budget that was set in spring but, this week, the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee heard from organisations, including carers and women’s organisations, that the time between the programme for government and the budget process is a bit restrictive, in exactly the way that you have just described. You can set out your programme for government and all your aspirations, but you can therefore continually claim that you have to wait to make any material difference to people’s lives by putting the budget in place. Will you consider a way in which we could change that? In addition, that committee also heard that, although you have to work within the budget, you have to be sure that you are using the maximum available resource and targeting that at the people who need it the most. I would consider that those people are unpaid carers.
Pam Duncan-Glancy is right that, as a Government, we want to target our support at those who need it most, which is why we have committed to and brought forward the bill, which will enable us to pay a double supplement in December and give that added support. We have secured the budget for that.
I am sure that Pam Duncan-Glancy will appreciate that I cannot speak to the evidence that was given in another committee, because I have not seen it.
It is important to remember that section 2 will allow us the flexibility to consider the need for increases in future. I appreciate that that point may relate to other amendments that we will consider in due course. Any increase must be dealt with through budget processes alongside considerations of funding for wider support for carers. That could be improved by any UK Government move to increase the underlying level of carers allowance, which we would welcome.
With regard to amendment 3 in particular, the important consideration is the challenge of the resource that is available in this year’s budget. I cannot support amendment 3, because any further increase this year would require resource to be allocated from elsewhere in the budget that was agreed by Parliament, which would have repercussions in other parts of Government spending. We cannot do that recklessly; the matter needs to be considered.
I am grateful that, following discussions on those points, Maggie Chapman is content not to press the amendment on the basis of the arguments that I put forward. To allow responsible consideration of the budget in the round, we cannot agree to the amendment at this point. Therefore, I urge members to reject it, and to focus on making sure that the December double supplement for carers, which is provided for in the budget, gets to those who are entitled to carers allowance in good time.
I apologise to Evelyn Tweed and Miles Briggs. I said at the outset that I would call other members after the amendment had been moved and the minister had spoken to it, and then call the proposer of the lead amendment to wind up. I note that Ms Chapman said that she wished to withdraw the amendment; however, the debate had started. I now invite her to press or withdraw amendment 3.
I would like to withdraw amendment 3.
I will suspend briefly.
09:52 Meeting suspended.
Are members content for amendment 3 to be withdrawn?
Members: No.
The question is, that amendment 3 be withdrawn. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
09:54 Meeting suspended.
Just to clear up any confusion, the question is, that amendment 3 be agreed to.
For
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Against
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 3 disagreed to.
Amendment 4, in the name of Maggie Chapman, is grouped with amendments 5, 8 and 9. I invite Maggie Chapman to move or not move amendment 4.
Not moved.
I intend to move amendment 4, and also amendments 5, 8 and 9 if Maggie Chapman has decided not to move them. The amendments in the group are helpful and I thank her for lodging them.
Amendment 4 would require the Scottish ministers to review the amount of carers allowance supplement once payment has been made, and to report to the Parliament. The amendment is helpful because it would allow the committee and the whole Parliament to review what was happening on an on-going basis. The report would also be required to cover Scottish ministers’ views on an increase to the young carer grant. I think that we all have aspirations for such an increase, even if it cannot happen at the moment. The amendment is helpful because it would keep the issue alive for us as a committee and for the Parliament and it would enable us to move forward.
Amendment 8 is a paving amendment for amendment 4.
Amendment 5 calls for a review of whether people who care for more than one person should get more money. In such cases, we make a one-off payment. The committee in the previous session grappled with and took evidence on how we deal with people who care for more than one person. I think that that will become a growing issue. People may have one elderly parent or two, and many families have two children who have a disability and need care, but we have never quite grasped that. Again, amendment 5 is helpful in keeping that issue alive.
Amendment 9 is a paving amendment for amendment 5.
I thank Maggie Chapman for lodging her amendments in the group and helping Parliament to have not only a wider review, but a continuing conversation on those issues.
I move amendment 4.
I reiterate what my colleague Jeremy Balfour has said. Amendments 4, 5, 8 and 9 are useful and I, too, thank Maggie Chapman for lodging them. Further to what she has outlined to the committee at stage 2 about the discussions that she has had with the Scottish Government on the issues, can she reassure us that the Scottish Government and the Scottish Green Party will bring what is proposed in the amendments back to Parliament at stage 3 so that the important requirements in them can be taken forward? Has she received such a commitment from the minister? He is here, so maybe he will also outline that to the committee.
I am happy to defer to the minister on that. We have had several discussions about the information that the amendments seek to require. Some of it is already available, and further reporting and information mechanisms will be made publicly available as consultation and discussions carry on. The minister might want to say more.
Before I bring in the minister, does any other member wish to speak to amendment 4 and the other amendments in the group?
The ad hoc nature of the amendments is no way to proceed. I cannot support them.
10:00
I thank colleagues for their comments. I respect and appreciate the points that Jeremy Balfour has made, but I do not believe that the review and reporting obligations that would be imposed by the amendments in the group are required, and I will set out why.
The Scottish Government has recently published evaluations on the carers allowance supplement and the young carer grant, as Maggie Chapman alluded to a few moments ago. The evaluation shows that the supplement has gone some way towards meeting its overall aims, which are to improve outcomes for carers by providing extra financial support and to provide greater recognition of the essential societal contribution that carers make. The majority of young carer grant recipients felt that it helped to make a difference to their lives, gave them access to more opportunities and improved their mental wellbeing.
We have undertaken all of that, and we are progressing our work to deliver Scottish carers assistance, including the commitment to an additional payment for those with multiple caring roles. I cannot support the amendments in the group, because meeting the additional reporting requirements that they would create would require reallocation of resources internally in the Scottish Government, away from our work to develop Scottish carers assistance and away from on-going work to consider improvements to the young carer grant.
If you are not reporting to Parliament, what reporting are you doing internally? If reporting to Parliament would remove resources, what reporting will take place? If you are reporting internally, why can that information not be shared with Parliament?
As I said, we have recently published evaluations on the carers allowance supplement and the young carer grant, and we will continue to do that as appropriate and in due course. However, the obligations that the amendments would place on us would take resources away from our development of Scottish carers assistance and the on-going work to consider improvements to the young carer grant, which is where our focus should be.
To respond directly to Miles Briggs, I note that, if the amendments are not agreed to, there is no intention to bring them back at stage 3, but I can commit to continuing to explore options outside the bill. I have talked about what we have done in terms of evaluation in recent times.
I am grateful to Maggie Chapman for the discussions that I have had with her in recent days, and for not moving amendment 4. As Jeremy Balfour has moved it, I will say that, although I am grateful for the debate that we have had, I urge members to reject all the amendments on reporting requirements, because they would detract from our work on developing the new Scottish carers assistance.
Maggie Chapman did not wish to move amendment 4, but it has been moved by Jeremy Balfour. I therefore ask him to sum up and say whether he wishes to press or withdraw amendment 4.
I am slightly confused by the minister’s response. On the one hand, we are told that the Government is trying to evaluate and do all the work to produce reports, but on the other hand we are told that producing a report for Parliament would take resources away from other work. It slightly feels to me that the Government is trying not to be open to scrutiny from Parliament and is deciding on the scrutiny on its own terms. For that reason, I believe that amendments 4, 5, 8 and 9 are important. I press amendment 4.
The question is, that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Against
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 4, Abstentions 0.
As the result is a tie, I will need to use my casting vote. Given the minister’s assurances that he will continue to evaluate and assess by other means, I cast my vote against the amendment.
Amendment 4 disagreed to.
Amendment 5 moved—[Jeremy Balfour].
10:05 Meeting suspended.
The question is, that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Against
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 4, Abstentions 0.
Again, there is a tie, so I will need to use my casting vote. Given the minister’s assurances regarding further work in the area, I cast my vote against amendment 5.
Amendment 5 disagreed to.
Section 1 agreed to.
After section 1
Amendment 1, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, is grouped with amendment 6.
I will speak to my amendment 1. I also support Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 6.
For us, the proposal in amendment 1 represents the key issue in relation to the bill. It is welcome that the double payment will be made this year. I appreciate that the money is coming out of a budget that has already been set and that it will have to be found from that. However, we have seen many delays to the Scottish benefits that are being delivered by the Scottish ministers, and we need to get on and deliver them. I hope that the timescales that the Government has given will be met, even if they are not what we hoped for when we started on the journey. However, we have no guarantee that that will happen. None of us has a crystal ball and we do not know what is going to happen in the next few years. There could be further delays.
Amendment 1 seeks to create an increase through a one-off payment every year so that there is a double payment. We have not set a budget yet and I presume that budget negotiations are going on between ministers and the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy so that the payment can be budgeted for and put into next year’s budget. I appreciate that this involves more money, but I presume that the Scottish Government will pay all the benefits that we are already committed to. We are told that it has to come under a budgetary negotiation, but that is true of all benefits. The moneys for PIP, disability living allowance and attendance allowance all have to be provided.
As the minister is well aware, the service is demand led, so none of us can be sure about exactly how much the social security budget is going to be. We have seen the social security budget go up this year because of what has happened in the past 18 months, and that may also be true in future years. As benefits are taken up and the amounts increase, that will have to be met within the Scottish Government’s budget.
The proposal in amendment 1 is reasonable and it would give people some kind of guarantee that they were going to get money. As the minister pointed out forcefully in the chamber on Tuesday afternoon, these are political decisions. We have taken different views on the universal credit issue, but this is a decision that we can take as the Scottish Parliament. It is a political decision, and we can decide whether we want to take it. Amendment 1 proposes that we show that we value carers, not only through nice words but through a financial package.
If the Government and the Parliament want to be even more generous, we can support amendment 6, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, which would provide for two payments. I recognise the need for that, and in the current financial circumstances it is worth arguing for.
We have options to make a one-off payment until at least 2025 or to make two payments. I am interested to know the minister’s view on that. It is clear to me that it is a political choice. We often criticise other Governments for doing different things, but we have the power here in Scotland today to give a guarantee to carers. I hope that committee members will make the right political choice and send a clear message that we care about carers and want to support them financially.
I move amendment 1.
An additional 392,000 people have become carers overnight due to the pandemic. Not all of those people will be able to access some of the funding, but a significant number of them can, and we need to show them that we recognise the work that they have done this year.
In the past year, I have spoken to carers who have told me that they are undervalued and feel invisible, exhausted and broken. Before I go any further on the reasons why I would like the committee to support amendment 6, I thank all the unpaid carers in Scotland for the work that they have done, regardless of whether it has been recognised with a financial uplift. I also thank paid carers, without whom I would not be sitting here today.
Unpaid carers have worked 24/7 with no break for a year and they are absolutely exhausted. It is important to remember that, before the pandemic, carers in Scotland were poorer than the average due to a combination of factors including access to secure, adequately paid, flexible employment and additional disability-related costs such as higher energy and transport costs.
Family Fund notes that, in 2019 alone, a third of the families that it supported saw an income reduction in their household. A third of carers are struggling to pay utility bills, 47 per cent have been in debt, and half are struggling to make ends meet and are cutting back on food and heating as a result. All of us round the table can agree that that is unacceptable.
Carers were then hit even harder by the effects of lockdown. Family Fund says that 78 per cent reported that their overall financial situation had got worse. Half of the families that were surveyed had seen their income fall as a result of the coronavirus pandemic, furlough and increased caring responsibilities. At the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee the other day, we heard that many women have had to give up paid work in order to undertake unpaid caring, which has cost them in excess of £15 million a day.
Uplifting benefits for carers by doubling the carers allowance supplement during the pandemic was absolutely the right thing to do, but the pandemic is nowhere near over. This week, some Opposition parties and the Government agreed with that principle when they made the same argument about the need to retain the uplift in universal credit.
The Scottish Government has promised to introduce Scottish carers assistance, which will be a new benefit that replaces carers allowance. However, we know that it will be a considerable time before the issues to do with the rate of and eligibility for carers assistance are addressed. That means that unpaid carers in Scotland are having to wait too long for the promised reforms and to have more money in their pockets. Today, we have a chance to keep the uplift permanently until carers assistance is introduced, and carers agree with that approach.
Carers Scotland estimates that, every day of the Covid-19 pandemic, unpaid carers have saved the Scottish Government £43 million. A contributor to the report, who is an unpaid carer, says that the supplement should be doubled permanently. They said:
“If the government had to pay for outside agencies to do the work of carers it would cost a lot more. Carers are completely undervalued and forgotten about.”
I fundamentally believe that we have an opportunity to ensure that we retain the uplift while the teeth of the pandemic are still biting. Doubling the supplement this year was the right thing to do, and it is right to give carers certainty for the future until we have reviewed carers assistance. I urge the committee to vote for amendment 6 and ensure that we do not make the payment only once a year, as is proposed in amendment 1. Unpaid carers are not just for Christmas but are much more valuable, and the payment should be made twice a year.
I urge the committee to support carers, thank them for their work and value them. Please support my amendment and give them extra money in their pockets.
10:15
The bill absolutely shows that the Scottish Government values carers. In previous evidence sessions, the committee heard that carers really appreciate what the Government is trying to do. Obviously, the Scottish Government wants to do more, but we have to make these changes in a planned fashion. There is an enabling power in the bill to increase carers allowance supplement, but that must be done in a proper, planned fashion.
I thank Evelyn Tweed for taking an intervention. I absolutely agree that it must be planned. In December, we will have a planned budget, which will then be decided on. Both of the amendments in the group would give certainty about plans. It is not new money that is having to be found from a set budget—this is a new budget. What more planning needs to take place, given that we will have budget negotiations over the next few months?
It is up to the Scottish Government to look at that in the round.
I thank Evelyn Tweed for taking another intervention. I take the point about planning, but I would hope that considerable planning is going on anyway as a result of the Government looking at introducing carers assistance in the future. I also ask the member to consider the planning that unpaid carers have to do given their financial circumstances and household bills. It is far easier for people to plan when they have certainties, rather than decisions being left to the discretion of ministers, who might at any point decide that they will not double the payment.
I take the member’s point, but the Scottish Government is listening, as we have heard in evidence. I note that it has already introduced seven brand-new benefits and four replacement benefits, which are more generous than those elsewhere in the UK, so I think that the Scottish Government is listening.
I thank the member for taking a further intervention. She is right to point out that those benefits have been more generous in some ways, but unpaid carers in their homes are not comparing themselves with people elsewhere in the UK. They are comparing themselves with people who are considerably better off because they do not have to provide unpaid care. Unpaid carers who are not getting carers allowance because the eligibility has not been extended are also comparing themselves with carers who are getting the allowance. Those are the comparisons that unpaid carers in the constituencies and communities that we represent are making. They are not looking at whether someone is better off elsewhere.
I acknowledge that point, but I say again that the Scottish Government is listening and will be looking at the situation for carers. I note again that, in the evidence that the committee has heard, carers acknowledged and welcomed what the Scottish Government is trying to do.
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.
Will the member take an intervention?
Members should make interventions brief, please.
Thank you, convener—that is noted. Will the member explain why she thinks that that is an ad hoc approach?
We need to plan, and it is important to get it right. At the end of the day, 45 years—
Will the member give way?
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—
Will the member give way?
No. You have made no effort to address the concerns of carers elsewhere, either.
I remind colleagues to debate through the chair and, when referring to colleagues, to do so with their full names for the benefit of those watching.
I think that we can all agree that this extra winter payment is needed and deserved this year, particularly in light of the work that carers do and the extra burdens that have been created for them during the pandemic. I am not sure that it is right to decide now to uplift the supplement by the same amount next year, given that what we have learned over the past two years is that we cannot know what next winter is going to look like. I am reassured that the bill gives ministers the power to make further increases as part of the budget process.
Your colleague mentioned the phrase “ad hoc”—
Through the chair, please.
I am sorry, convener. We have heard a member say that an ad hoc approach is not the way forward, because it means that carers cannot plan. Do you not agree that, for carers, it is much better to have certainty instead of ad hoc decisions made at the whim of a minister? Moreover, all benefits have to be paid and administered, which means that in every budget process we will have to work out a social security budget that will have to be paid for.
I am hopeful that we will give carers the certainty that this winter they will get an extra payment that is needed. We have to recognise that Scotland will now be the only country in the UK where, thanks to this supplement, carers allowance is no longer the lowest working-age benefit.
Mr Balfour was right when he said earlier that these are political decisions. He could always encourage his colleagues in the UK Government to increase carers allowance to the level of jobseekers allowance and allow this supplement to go further.
The context here is important, because we are discussing an increase to a top-up to a benefit that is the lowest of any UK working-age benefit. It is a short-term intervention that gets extra cash into carers’ pockets this Christmas, because their UK carers allowance payments are woefully inadequate. Over the past few months, witnesses have told us about, among other things, the huge issues around eligibility for carers allowance and, as we have heard, the supplement will benefit an estimated one in 10 carers, which is nowhere near good enough. The Government, therefore, needs appropriate time to consult carers, those whom they care for and carers organisations to bring in a new carers assistance that will reach as many people as possible, instead of members clumsily lodging an amendment that seeks to increase a top-up to a payment that we know is inadequate.
Given that money is not endless, it is right that we accept this extra payment as something positive that aims to top up a flawed system. Nobody in this room will disagree that carers deserve more, but we have to do this right.
First, I want to emphasise that the Government absolutely values the role played by unpaid carers. We are the Government that introduced the carers allowance supplement in 2018 to ensure that carers no longer receive what Emma Roddick has rightly pointed out is the lowest of benefits, and we introduced the young carer grant. Both benefits are unique in the UK and are two of seven brand new benefits that we have introduced to provide, as Evelyn Tweed rightly made clear, more financial support for the people of our country.
Through our social security powers, we now invest more than £350 million a year in supporting carers through carers allowance, carers allowance supplement and the young carer grant. That is a significant investment. Since September 2018, around 574,000 carers allowance supplement payments totalling £149.4 million have been made to around 120,000 carers. Carers continuously in receipt of carers allowance and carers allowance supplement will have received over £2,270 more than carers in the rest of the UK.
Like members round the table, I would like carers to receive more support. That is what we are working towards together. Like Emma Roddick and Marie McNair, I encourage the UK Government to increase the rate of carers allowance. That would mean more than 900,000 carers across Great Britain receiving increased support and mean that our supplement would go further.
We recognise—this is an important point—that, as Pam Duncan-Glancy emphasised, the pandemic has identified a need for greater flexibility in how we support carers when society faces significant changes in circumstances. That is why, last year, we used emergency coronavirus legislation to introduce an additional payment and why we are introducing such a payment again this year. That is what the bill is all about. To prevent the need for primary legislation in the future, the bill includes a power to enable ministers to introduce regulations that increase the amount of the carers allowance supplement. That is an important enabling power that we put into the bill.
In this financial year, we have secured the resource for a doubling of the December carers allowance supplement, which is why we prioritised introducing the bill. I thank the committee for its work on the expedited process for the bill, which is the first one of the parliamentary session to get to stage 2. We have done it at that pace to focus on ensuring that we get the resource to carers in December.
I appreciate members’ ambition and desire to provide more assistance. Today and on Tuesday, Mr Balfour talked about political choices. We have political choices to make, just as we have financial ones, and the Government chooses to make a difference where it can. We chose to mitigate the low value of the carers allowance through the supplement to the cost of around £40 million a year since 2018. We did that because we want to make a difference. We chose to mitigate the bedroom tax at a cost of £70 million a year. We chose to introduce the Scottish child payment and bridging payments to support thousands of children and put £130 million into the pockets of families in this financial year.
Those are the political and financial choices that the Government makes every year within its fixed budget. The important point is that we have a fixed budget. Last year and this year, we chose to pay an additional carers allowance supplement of more than £230. We might be able to make that choice in the future, depending on our budget and what else we do with Scottish carers assistance as it develops into a replacement benefit for carers.
We have choices ahead. Through the development of Scottish carers assistance, we are considering options for the longer term that will increase our support for carers through our social security system. We will begin our consultation this winter on proposals for the delivery of Scottish carers assistance. That will require us carefully to consider the balance to be struck between extending eligibility for, and increasing the amount of, Scottish carers assistance.
As I said in the stage 1 debate, future increases will be considered in the context of the circumstances faced by carers and the financial constraints that we face. If we were to commit over future years the resource that the amendments ask for, we could not utilise it, potentially, to support carers in other ways. That is why we need to consider the issues in the round, and is why I cannot support either amendment and urge committee members to reject them.
10:30
To wind up the debate, I call Jeremy Balfour to press or withdraw amendment 1. I ask him to be brief.
I have a few points in response to the debate.
I was very proud, back in May, to be elected to the Scottish Parliament and to have the powers that we have. That is what I am here to do: to use the powers of the Scottish Parliament. I disagree with Evelyn Tweed that the decision is for the Scottish Government. I think that the decision is for us as a Parliament. That is why we have been elected: to be the voice of those who are perhaps the most vulnerable in our society. I do believe not in dictatorship but in democracy and in parties playing their role in that. That point is really important.
On the other point that the minister made, the budget is not fixed. The Government has powers, if it wants them, to increase or decrease the budget. The budget that is set is not fixed; the budget that is available depends on decisions that are made by the Government and by the Parliament.
The nub of the issue is that we all want the new Scottish carers assistance to come in. However, as the minister has pointed out, we will start the process in December, with a consultation that will, rightly, take people’s views; the Government will then, rightly, respond to that consultation and the proposals will come after that. That will not happen overnight; it will not happen next year; and it will probably not happen the year after. I think that the provisional date is 2025. That leaves us with four years of uncertainty on whether Ben Macpherson and the cabinet secretary have successful negotiations with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy.
Marie McNair said that we do not want an ad hoc system. I absolutely agree. I do not want an ad hoc system. I want absolute certainty, and I want the Scottish Government to know, when it is planning its budget, that the payment will be made either once a year at double the rate, or twice a year, depending on which amendment members go for.
We all have choices to make. I am not an MP. I am not there to make choices at Westminster. I am here today, as are we all on this committee, to make choices on things that we can influence here in Scotland. That is why I press amendment 1.
The question is, that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Against
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 4, Abstentions 0.
The vote is tied. I will use my casting vote. Given what the minister and colleagues have said, I cast my vote against amendment 1.
Amendment 1 disagreed to.
Amendment 6 moved—[Pam Duncan-Glancy].
The question is, that amendment 6 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Against
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 4, Abstentions 0.
The vote is tied. I will use my casting vote. Again, based on what the minister and colleagues have said, I use my casting vote to oppose amendment 6.
Amendment 6 disagreed to.
Section 2—Power to increase amount of carer’s allowance supplement
Amendment 8, in the name of Maggie Chapman, has already been debated with amendment 4. I call Maggie Chapman to move or not move.
Not moved.
Although Maggie Chapman has chosen not to move amendment 8, there was a debate on it. Does any other colleague wish to move amendment 8? The answer appears to be no.
Amendment 8 not moved.
Amendment 9 not moved.
To give colleagues a couple of minutes for a comfort break, I suspend the meeting.
10:35 Meeting suspended.
Amendment 2, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, is in a group on its own.
We had an important debate earlier. Amendment 2 is a bit nerdy and more technical, but it is important that we debate it and come to a view on it.
The amendment relates to how the committee and the Parliament should consider any regulations that the Government introduces, in due course, under the bill. We heard from members and the minister that there is a power in the bill for the Government to introduce regulations to vary the amount of the supplement.
Regulations often end up at a committee at a late stage and do not get the proper scrutiny. That is no criticism of anyone; it is just how the system works. However, if we used the super-affirmative procedure, it would at least give us time to pause and examine any regulations properly. It would allow a third party a valuable tool for examining them as well and would ensure that they had no unforeseen consequences. It would also allow us a bit longer to consider them.
The super-affirmative procedure would provide a proper check. When the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 went through the Parliament, in the previous parliamentary session, we all—including the Government and the Parliament—were keen to get it right because many of the benefits affect vulnerable people. Using the super-affirmative procedure for any regulations that the Government introduced would allow us a bit more scrutiny. It would make the Government think about them a bit more quickly, because they would have to be produced more quickly and they would go through the proper scrutiny.
I will be interested to hear what the minister has to say on that.
I move amendment 2.
Thank you very much indeed for your brevity, Mr Balfour.
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 appreciate Mr Balfour’s point in lodging the amendment, but it is not required.
The Scottish Commission on Social Security plays an important role in providing detailed scrutiny of draft social security regulations on which the advice of experts in social security is required. However, any decision to increase the amount of an existing benefit must be made in the context of the wider financial and non-financial support that is provided to the people who are entitled to the benefit and within the wider fiscal context and limits of our budget. Those decisions are best suited to the Parliament.
As the changes that can be made under any regulations that are laid under the new power that we seek to introduce are limited to increasing the level of the supplement for a specific period or periods, we do not consider that further scrutiny by the Scottish Commission on Social Security is necessary or appropriate. The application of the affirmative procedure in section 2 will allow members adequate opportunity to consider any regulations in draft form. I note that the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee’s stage 1 report on the bill supported that position.
Considering all those points, I do not support the amendment and urge Mr Balfour not to press it. If he does, I urge the committee not to support it.
Thank you, minister. I appreciate your brevity.
10:45
I thank the minister for his reflections on my amendment. I agree with Marie McNair that there are capacity issues with regard to SCOSS that we, as a Parliament, will need to look at. In any case, the regulations that I am talking about are future ones. Perhaps the minister misunderstood me, as I am looking to ensure that any such regulations do not affect the December payment.
The minister has made some interesting points, which I would like to reflect on. With the committee’s permission, I will withdraw amendment 2 and see where we are at stage 3.
Amendment 2, by agreement, withdrawn.
Section 2 agreed to.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
Long title agreed to.
Thank you, colleagues. That ends our stage 2 consideration of the bill. The deadline for stage 3 amendments is 12 noon on Monday 4 October, and we expect to consider stage 3 on Thursday 7 October.
I thank the minister, non-committee members and the minister’s officials for joining us this morning, and I briefly suspend the meeting before moving on to the next agenda item.
10:46 Meeting suspended.Previous
Subordinate Legislation