Chamber and committees

Thank you. I appreciate that. I have a further question on this. We know, and Inclusion Scotland has made representations to this effect, that disabled people’s energy costs have doubled and that a number of disabled people access the winter heating payment that the minister mentioned. On that basis, Inclusion Scotland suggested that that payment also be increased. I think it originally said that it should be doubled. What was your response to its request?

How would there be a two-tier system just now? My understanding is that all carers allowance is being paid by the UK Government. The two-tier system would be one tier in Scotland and one tier in the rest of the UK, which I think we can all accept is the point of devolution. I do not understand that justification.

Thank you.

As the minister and other members will be aware, the Scottish statutory instrument that we are looking at today raises the carers allowance earnings limit to £139, which in the context of some of the figures that I set out earlier is very helpful. However, in the Government’s consultation on carers assistance, the proposed increased to the amount that carers could earn while receiving that assistance—of course, carers allowance is still being delivered through the DWP under an agency agreement—could be linked to 16 hours at the real living wage, which would be £174. Has the minister considered that figure as opposed to £139? Why has the minister not taken the opportunity to put more money into the pockets of unpaid carers, who are really struggling right now?

I appreciate that there is a live consultation, but does the minister accept that unpaid carers are struggling and that any increase could be helpful? The figure that I have chosen is the one that the minister proposed in the consultation. I am not asking the minister to pre-empt the conclusions, but I think that it is fair to assume that unpaid carers would accept that more money is needed. I am just asking whether that figure was considered.

Good morning. Thank you for joining us and for bringing Fernando with you. It is always nice to see a pet, stuffed or otherwise, online.

I am keen to pick up on cultural awareness, where my colleague Rachael Hamilton left off. When we last spoke, there was an aspiration for us to do something on particular weeks. Can we help with that on an on-going basis? What would you like or do you need politicians in this room and across the chamber to do to support that work?

Thank you. Obviously, there has been a lot of focus this week on Ukraine and the illegal war there. We heard briefly about that just now. I take the point about your engagement with those families, but do you know whether access to training in English as a second language here has been stretched? Are there enough resources to make sure that people who come here from Ukraine and other countries get access to that education?

In the motion that you read out earlier, you said that “further steps are needed”. Will you set out some of those further steps for us?

I suspect that Rachael and I may be about to ask the same thing—I hope that I do not cut across you, Rachael.

On that final point, what options are available to us to uphold the minimum core? What have we got now and what will we need in the future so that, if we see a circumstance—Rob Watts highlighted a good example—where we may not meet the basic minimum, we can enforce it? What powers do you, the courts, individuals and parliamentarians need?

That is a good question. I mean both: now—I am conscious that, as we have heard, we should be enforcing the minimum core now—and post-incorporation as well. The purpose of incorporation is to make rights more real for people, surely.

Thank you—I appreciate that. That is an interesting way to put it: what do we do first? We will need to have a wee think about that and probably come back to you guys for your expertise on it.

I want to pick up on your point, Luis, about measurement and data. Is the availability of data and the gathering of evidence and data, as well as your ability to compel that data to be provided, an issue? Are both things an issue, or is it just—