Seòmar agus comataidhean

Does Mr Stewart agree with Ruth Davidson that the £20 per week cut to universal credit should be reversed?

I refer to the joint agreement that was signed by the Scottish Government and organisations such as the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Scottish Trades Union Congress and the Institute of Directors, which states that no worker should be penalised if they are off work following medical advice relating to Covid-19. I have a constituent with long Covid, and she is being pressured by her employer. Does the agreement apply to people who have been diagnosed with long Covid?

I thank the committee for its short but comprehensive report. As others have done, I offer my thanks to all carers.

I welcome the carers allowance supplement, although it has reminded me—as if I needed to be reminded—of the complexity of the UK benefits system. To claim carers allowance, a person has to spend 35 hours a week caring for a disabled person who must be in receipt of certain disability benefits, such as attendance allowance. However, the twice yearly payment of the supplement is in advance of the introduction of Scottish carers assistance, which is on the cards.

Notwithstanding its limitations, the carers allowance supplement puts an extra £700 per annum into the pockets of carers. That is in contrast to the 33,000 carers in Scotland who will lose £20 a week following the cuts to universal credit—that is almost £1,000 a year. I was interested to see that Ruth Davidson opposes that cut. That is what happens when someone leaves this parish—they grow wings.

There is another rule of which I was not aware because I am not a benefits expert. Who is? The overlapping benefits rule disallows people from carers allowance. That matters if someone is a particular sort of carer. For example, for a pensioner in receipt of state pension, which is just above the carers allowance threshold, the rule prevents that person from getting the allowance and, as it follows that the additional payment in Scotland is piggybacking on that, they also do not get the carers allowance supplement. That is unfair.

I want to see that injustice addressed when we get the other benefit that is coming up—Scottish carers assistance. That will be an opportunity to cure some of the system’s ills. However, although I am very sympathetic to more money going to carers, I know that there is no money tree—I wish that there were. We have to know how we can pay for things and not make promises that we cannot pay for.

It is crystal clear, although members will not necessarily agree with me, that the UK benefits system is so complex that we would never choose to start from this point. It is extremely difficult for the Scottish Parliament to wedge its own benefits into another system. It would be far better if the benefits system were in the powers of the Parliament, so that we could integrate it, make it fair and undo the unjust complexity that prevents many people from getting benefits—even people who are entitled to benefit do not claim it, because the system is so bewildering.

Finally, I put on record my thanks to all carers: the young—as has been mentioned, many of them are very young indeed—and the old. Regardless of whether they receive carers allowance, their dedication mainly comes from love—love, duty and responsibility—and takes the burden away from the state. They deserve the money to back them up, and they deserve respite, too.

Many addicts are indeed victims of things that have happened in their life. I distinguish those people clearly from those who supply drugs. I welcome diversion where it is appropriate and tailored to the individual. Does the Lord Advocate agree that diversion is certainly not a soft option, but that there is a chance that the addict can break their destructive habit, which is not something that prison can often achieve?

I note that only 21 per cent of calls in August were about life-threatening conditions. Although I welcome the 100 additional call handlers, will the cabinet secretary consider reviewing the 999 and 111 call triage information technology systems to ensure that cases that can be dealt with by other services, such as out-of-hours GPs or minor injury clinics, are referred appropriately and are not sent an emergency ambulance? I stress that I am referring to the IT systems and not the call handlers themselves.

My question is not on that issue. I thought that we were on to general questions.

I am sorry, Presiding Officer. I thought that we were going to finish that question.

A fair work joint statement on Covid, which was agreed by the Scottish Government and organisations such as the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Scottish Trades Union Congress and the Institute of Directors, states—

I put on record my thanks to all working at the Borders general hospital and in primary care services across Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale, including GPs, pharmacists, those who work in the ambulance service and first responders.

I will focus my short contribution on the care sector, including those who deliver care at home and in residential settings. The horrid pandemic exposed as never before that care is a Cinderella service, with low pay and low regard. It is a service that is provided by people who serve and care for the most vulnerable in our society with kindness and skill. None of us in the chamber, or in general society, is innocent when it comes to taking those care professionals for granted. Therefore, I welcome the Feeley report, the creation of a national care service and the scrapping of non-residential care service charges. I was here in 2002, when we introduced free personal care for over-65s in Scotland, limited though it was. Such free personal care was not introduced in England. I was also here for the introduction of Frank’s law, which extended that care to the under-65s.

I was here when the integration joint boards were launched to ease the transition from hospital to home. That is an extremely difficult nut to crack, but a start has been made. Money was wasted—[Interruption.] Sorry, I have not got time to take an intervention; I only have four minutes.

I recognise the Fair Work Convention’s report into social care and the work to embed fair work principles for the social care workforce, leading to better terms and conditions.

I would like to see more publicity for existing college courses, through which someone can transition from the care sector to nursing in a way that means that professional progression is available.

In all this, the voice of the carers and those for whom they care must be not only heard, but heeded. Like many, I was extremely moved by the clap for carers on Thursday evenings, when the tenements around me echoed with cheers, the rattling of pots and pans, the blowing of whistles and even the occasional sound of the bagpipes. However, being moved is not enough, and I want to see more than recognition; I want to see pay that better matches the skills and commitment of those in the care sector and which recognises not only their duty to their job but that the job of caring for the most vulnerable is a vocation. That would be a good place to start.

For generations, we left much of the care of the elderly in residential settings to companies in the commercial sector, some of which were good, and some of which were bad, as was the case when local authorities provided the care. It is time that we made sure that our very elderly—I might have to declare an interest—are cared for properly when they come to the end of their years.

On cross-border vaccination between England and Scotland, the advice is that if someone lives in Scotland and they received their first, second or both vaccine doses outside Scotland but in the common travel area, which includes England, they should now be able to get proof of their vaccination status through the normal process online or by phoning the Covid helpline. However, when my constituents phone the helpline, they are told that they need to request proof of vaccination in England from NHS England. There seems to be some confusion here. Can the First Minister clarify the situation?

I honestly just seek clarity. Do you agree with the findings of the cross-party select committee—