Seòmar agus comataidhean

My point is exactly that: it is no different from any other benefit, and it has to go through the normal budgetary processes to ensure that it is sustainable over the financial period that we are talking about. That is absolutely right.

The Conservatives have some cheek; in the same week in which we have seen a cut to universal credit impacting the same carers that we are talking about, they are asking the Scottish Government to do even more to make up for that cut.

I support the idea of looking at ways of providing further support to carers, but I do not agree with using the bill to do that, as it is primarily about ensuring that the December payment can be doubled. I will vote against the amendments in the group if they are pressed.

Further to my earlier contribution, I will make a more general speech about the merits of the bill before stage 3 is completed.

The bill delivers a second double payment of the Scottish Government’s carers supplement. It means that eligible carers in Scotland are due to get an additional £462.80 in December on top of their regular carers allowance. The evidence that we heard in committee from carers and representative stakeholders proves why that payment is necessary. It goes a small way towards demonstrating the value that the Scottish Government places on the role played by unpaid carers. Carers Scotland estimates the economic value to Scotland of unpaid carers to be over £10 billion a year, but it is far harder to measure the social and wellbeing impact that they have.

There is no doubt that carers and the people they are caring for have had a particularly difficult time over the past 18 months. Many have had to take on additional roles and faced additional costs during the pandemic. We heard about those challenges in evidence to the committee and, at stage 1, the financial challenges, as well as those in relation to respite services, were also raised.

It is right that we make sure that we keep doing what we can to assist those heroes to keep doing their phenomenal work for the people they care for. The doubling of the December payment means that carers in Scotland will be £690 better off this year compared to those on carers allowance elsewhere in the UK.

An earlier line of argument being pursued by Miles Briggs, Jeremy Balfour and Stephen Kerr—in an intervention—needs correction. The letter from the minister of 6 October, which Mr Briggs said was just a paragraph actually extended to three pages. Perhaps Mr Briggs should check his printer settings—maybe it was only the final page that came out.

I thought that Mr Briggs and Mr Balfour were referring to the section on evaluation, which is certainly longer than that. There is also a link to the published evaluation that the Scottish Government produced in December 2020. There is no secrecy or conspiracy, as some of the Conservatives would have wanted people to believe—far from it.

Perhaps the Tories need reminding that their party continues to preside over the carers allowance as the most miserly form of social security. The supplement is available only to eligible carers in Scotland. Perhaps if the Tories want the supplement to go further, they could persuade their colleagues at Westminster to pull their weight by expanding the payment of, or eligibility for, the carers allowance. If they will not, the calls that we hear today for the Scottish Government to go even further than their colleagues in Westminster lack any credibility.

While the Scottish Government is investing in providing additional support to carers, the UK Government is shamefully cutting universal credit by £1,040 per year. It should be remembered that many unpaid carers who will receive the supplement will also receive universal credit. One Government is investing in social security to support our citizens who are carers and the other is driving poverty by cutting social security.

I have no doubt that we will have further discussions about future supplements via the regulatory power that the bill gives to ministers, and I look forward to taking views on the new Scottish carers assistance when those proposals are published soon.

To conclude, I put on record again my thanks to carers in Scotland for all that they do. I also thank those people who submitted their evidence and suggestions to the committee for our consideration and the team who support the committee, such as our clerks and the Scottish Parliament information centre, for getting our scrutiny done in the truncated timescale. I very much hope that the bill will pass unanimously and that we can get the crucial support that our carers deserve into their pockets for December.

It is my pleasure to speak—albeit briefly—in today’s stage 3 debate, which will hopefully complete the bill’s journey that began only a few short weeks ago in the Social Justice and Social Security Committee, which I convene.

Amendments 6 and 7 in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy and amendment 3, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, were considered and rejected by the committee at stage 2. We heard substantial evidence from carers and from organisations representing carers on how welcome the bill is and how welcome the second double payment will be in December. Like Jeremy Balfour, I want to take the opportunity to put on record my thanks to all those who engaged with our evidence sessions and to carers across Scotland for the work that they do.

There is no doubt that we need to continue to invest in supporting our carers. We heard testimony that was very challenging at times about the challenges that unpaid carers face and how those challenges have been exacerbated by the pandemic. That is why it is right that the Scottish Government is, with the bill, taking support for eligible carers way beyond what is available elsewhere in the UK.

I do not oppose the principle of continuing to pay additional supplements next year or until the new Scottish carers assistance benefit is established, if that is what is required—our carers deserve that—but it is really important that, as the current devolved, hybrid settlement means that the Scottish Government has to operate within a fixed budget and without the borrowing powers that are enjoyed by normal Parliaments that deliver social security, commitments to make new payments are properly costed and taken through the formal budget process, as the committee heard in evidence from the Scottish Fiscal Commission this morning.

To respond to Liam Kerr, I struggle with the case for the union if his strongest argument is that the disastrous negotiation of Brexit is the best case for keeping the union together.

So, there is no fuel crisis. We are going to suspend competition law to allow fuel companies to collude and share market information—but there is no crisis. Petrol stations have had to close because there is no fuel—but there is no crisis. We are going to make a massive U-turn on visa rules to allow EU HGV drivers temporary access to work in the UK—but there is no crisis. We are going to call in our British Army—but there is no crisis. Food prices are expected to rise by 5 per cent before Christmas—but there is no crisis. And by Jove, Gove, it has nothing to do with Brexit, of course.

Grant Shapps finally admitted earlier this week, however, that Brexit is undoubtedly a factor. Of course it was. We know that EU workers from many countries and many industries, including HGV drivers, returned to their native countries because of the hostile environment that was exacerbated by Brexit and the end of freedom of movement. No other European country is suffering the food and fuel shortages that are being suffered across the UK, as the cabinet secretary pointed out.

It did not have to be this way. I sat in the House of Commons for many years and listened to Theresa May box herself in with her self-defeating red lines. We warned her over and over again that she did not need to pursue the form of Brexit that she started and that Boris Johnson rebadged and made worse. The Scottish Government tried to help find a compromise at the time. The UK Government could have kept a more open relationship with the EU. It could have listened and engaged with the Scottish Government to pursue a customs union, single market deal that would have kept freedom of movement in place and would have spared us many of the labour market challenges that we now have. However, Theresa May was too scared to stand up to the extremists in her own party and was totally beholden to them, boxing herself in with her own red lines, failing to listen to the needs of employers and failing to listen to anyone who was warning about the impact of stopping freedom of movement—and so we see the crisis that is now before us.

To acknowledge Willie Rennie’s point about challenges going beyond freedom of movement, imagine if Michael Gove had honoured his promise during the Brexit referendum campaign for Scotland to have control over immigration powers. Perhaps if he had followed through on that promise, we could have at least cleared up a bit more of the mess from Westminster, with a fair system that reflects our needs.

I think that is something that needs to be considered.

Aside from the Brexit failures, the Tories are culpable in other ways, too, regarding the HGV crisis. We know that there is a backlog of 54,000 licence applications. I understand from local employers in Airdrie and Shotts who have been impacted that most of those are licence renewals. That is because UK ministers have failed to deal with the concerns of members of the Public and Commercial Services union, who say that their working conditions are unsafe. That dispute has dragged on for months, and I fail to see what UK ministers have done about it until some 11th-hour desperation set in, when it is too late—and now look where we are.

The Tories are desperate to try and distance themselves from any responsibility for this mess. Let us therefore use a measure that they normally love to use. The Tories love looking to the markets as a barometer of success. I wonder what they reckon the pound suffering its biggest fall against the dollar and a sharp fall against the euro means. I suspect it means that the markets are losing confidence because of Brexit and the UK Government’s failure, which is to the detriment of the people of Scotland.

Why will the Tories not just apologise for being wrong, instead of showing the screaming defensiveness that we see today, because they are embarrassed? Does that not show, once again, that Scotland could do so much better with the powers of independence?

I refer colleagues to my entry in the register of members’ interests. As the cabinet secretary said, this action cannot be about just education, although I note the substantial investment in our schools. The best way to narrow the poverty-related attainment gap is to address poverty.

When a £6 billion cut in universal credit, which will remove £1,000 from low-income families, is coming forward from the Tories, a £500 million replication of the Scottish welfare fund, as was announced this morning, will go no way towards making up for the poverty that people will suffer. What impact will those cuts have on the Government’s ability to close the poverty-related attainment gap?

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the action it is taking to close the poverty-related attainment gap, including in response to the reduction to universal credit. (S6O-00231)

The member said that the problems that have been facing the HGV sector are not just down to Brexit. Of course, he is partly right in that. Part of the problem is to do with a dispute with the Public and Commercial Services Union saying that the working conditions under the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency are not safe. UK ministers have done nothing about that, which has caused a backlog of 54,000 applications, which are stopping more HGV drivers coming through. Does the member accept that?

Does Sarah Boyack accept the principle that was set out yesterday by her colleague Lisa Nandy, that freedom of movement should no longer be up for discussion?