Chamber and committees

Is the more compassionate approach that Scotland is taking to terminal illness claims a possible factor in some of the cost increases that are projected?

I actually want to pose another question, which I direct to Crisis. I noted your comments regarding the housing costs. Joseph Rowntree Foundation, when giving evidence at one of our previous meetings, shared the same view that single parents face very high housing costs. How much has freezing the local housing allowance rates contributed to that?

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 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 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.

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?

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.