Seòmar agus comataidhean

I say to the member that it would simply not be sustainable, on a fixed budget, for the Scottish Parliament to mitigate every action that the United Kingdom Government takes, as we would have to cut into huge swathes of the health budget or the budgets that go to local government. We simply cannot do that. We have to target our efforts on where we can make the biggest impact. There is no doubt about the Scottish Government’s intention to double the Scottish child payment. We have said that we will do that as part of the budget process, which is fast approaching. As I have said previously in the chamber, we will look at what else we can do to support the most affected families, and we are currently looking at what else can be done to support families through what will be a very difficult winter.

Time and again, the member and her party call for mitigation of policies that have been made in a different place, yet they do not support this Parliament having the powers to set the policies here, which would avoid us having to mitigate in the first place. I ask them to please join us in making sure that we get those powers here in this Parliament.

The Government has delivered more than 103,000 affordable homes since 2007 and is committed to delivering 110,000 more affordable homes by 2032, of which 70 per cent will be available for social rent and 10 per cent will be in our remote, rural and island communities.

In certain areas, short-term lets can make it harder for people to find housing, which is why regulation of short-term lets is vital in balancing the needs and concerns of residents and communities alongside wider economic and tourism interests. We are aware of the concerns around price increases and supply shortages of construction materials. We are working through the Scottish Construction Leadership Forum to fully understand the current supply chain issues and, where possible, to put in place mitigating actions.

The housing first programme ensures that people with multiple and complex needs are allocated settled accommodation, with the individually tailored support that they need, in mainstream tenancies in the community, rather than in larger-scale communal settings.

We promote a no wrong door approach to improve joint working between health, homelessness and front-line services in recognition of the challenges that people with multiple and complex needs have in accessing housing. We are seeking views on practical options for improving access to mental health support and services for people who experience homelessness.

Siobhian Brown might be interested in the analysis that Crisis put out today, which shows that

“the proportion of people suffering from the worst forms of homelessness in Scotland is about half as high as in England”.

Campaigners have said that that is due to the policies of the Scottish Government.

There is always more to do, and we are determined to do it.

As Pam Duncan-Glancy knows, we have set out how we will double the Scottish child payment. The doubling of the Scottish child payment is not in doubt and has never been in doubt. We will deal with that and take it forward as part of the budget discussions. I am happy to continue to discuss those issues with Pam Duncan-Glancy.

Regarding the support that we are already providing to families, we have increased the school clothing grant to £120 for primary school kids and to £150 for secondary school kids, and we are delivering provision of free school meals during school holidays, which will support about 148,000 children and young people. We are also doubling the carers allowance supplement with an extra investment that is forecast to be £21 million, which marks the second time that the Government has doubled that benefit.

We have declared a national mission to eradicate child poverty. While the UK Government is criticised by the Work and Pensions Committee for its lack of targets or strategy for tackling child poverty, the Scottish Government will publish its second tackling child poverty delivery plan next March, backed by £50 million over the lifespan of the plan.

We will double the Scottish child payment to £80 every four weeks as soon as we can in this parliamentary session. In the interim, we have introduced bridging payments of £520, to be paid in both 2021 and 2022, for those who get free school meals due to their families being on low incomes. [Interruption.]

Despite our best efforts, the universal credit cut will undermine much of the positive effect of the Scottish child payment. That is just not acceptable, so I call on all colleagues across the chamber to make their voices and the voices of their constituents heard in a unified call on the UK Government to do the right thing and reverse its decision to cut universal credit while extending the uplift to legacy benefits. I call on Parliament to support the motion in my name.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees, along with opposition parties in the UK Parliament, that the UK Government’s planned reduction to universal credit should be reversed; recognises the cross-party efforts of opposition parties in the UK Parliament and the social security committees of each of the four nations’ parliaments and assembly in this aim; notes Scottish Government analysis that the reduction of universal credit could reduce welfare expenditure in Scotland by £461 million a year by 2023-24 and push 60,000 people, including 20,000 children, into poverty; agrees that the inadequacy of the payment is just one of many issues with universal credit, alongside the two-child cap and the abhorrent so-called “rape clause”, the five-week wait for a first payment, the benefit sanctions regime and the so-called “bedroom tax”; believes that this reflects the UK Government’s uncompassionate approach to welfare, which has been challenged by opposition parties across the UK, and acknowledges Scotland’s human rights-based approach to social security.

I will be happy to take an intervention if the member can answer why he thinks that a third of universal credit recipients should be in debt after his Government cuts universal credit.

As a Conservative member told me last week, it is about the political choices that are being made. The political choice of the UK Tory Government is not to continue the £20 uplift for the most vulnerable people in our society at a time of rising fuel and food prices. That position is unsustainable.

I will not, just now.

Analysis from the Legatum Institute that was published last week shows that the uplift prevented 840,000 people across the UK, including 290,000 children, from being pushed into poverty. A recent report from Citizens Advice showed that, as a result of the cut, more than one third of universal credit recipients across the UK would be in debt after paying just their essential bills.

Does that not just reveal the Tories’ thinking? They do not even recognise that a huge number of people on universal credit are already in work. Does Mr Kerr not even know that? He fails to understand the position—as do so many Tories—that people on universal credit face.

The Legatum Institute’s research highlights the need for the additional money. The chancellor said that the uplift was required

“to benefit our most vulnerable households”.

Those people are no less vulnerable now. If anything, with the rising cost of living and a national insurance hike on the way, they are in an even more precarious position than ever. Once again, on behalf of the Scottish Government and on behalf of the Parliament, I call on the UK Government to reverse the planned cut.

It is not just the Scottish Government and Parliament that have expressed their outrage and alarm at the planned cut. Calls for the lifeline to be kept have come from organisations and individuals from across the political spectrum. The four social security committees and the four children’s commissioners of the UK nations have written to the UK Government, too, standing up for the people they represent and calling for that lifeline to be maintained. From the Conservative Party alone, Baroness Ruth Davidson, Alexander Stewart and all six former work and pensions secretaries since 2010 have called for a reversal. Surely, Tory members do not think that every single one of them is wrong. The Scottish Government has also written to the UK Government on eight occasions throughout the pandemic to ask it to make the uplift permanent and extend it to legacy benefits. The unity from such a diverse range of voices—it is not common—that are urging the UK Government to reconsider should make it clear that this is not a question of partisan politics; it is about doing the economically, socially and morally right thing.

I am certain that colleagues across the chamber will share my grave concerns about the UK Government’s repeated refusal to conduct any impact assessments of the cut’s effects. Most recently, the then Minister for Welfare Delivery confirmed on 17 September that the Department for Work and Pensions had not analysed and would not analyse the cut’s effects; yet the Financial Times quoted an anonymous UK Government official confessing that it was well understood that the cut would see homelessness, poverty and food bank usage soar, which we all know to be the case.

It is hard to fathom why the UK Government has chosen to proceed with the cut without properly assessing its impact—so much so that the United Nations special rapporteur on extreme poverty described the cut as “deliberately retrogressive” and “unconscionable”. It is no wonder that he felt that he had no choice but to write to the Prime Minister to call for the cut to be reversed, while he noted that the UK Government’s decision to remove the uplift might fail to conform to international human rights law.

Perhaps the most sobering insight into what the cut will mean comes directly from the people who will be affected. Earlier this month, a recipient of universal credit spoke movingly to the Work and Pensions Committee about the effect that the cut will have on his family. He said:

“Before the uplift was introduced we were already on a knife edge to do with food versus fuel. The uplift sent some relief and for that to be removed is going to leave us with that big question again: do I go hungry, do my kids go hungry or do we keep the house warm?”

That is the terrible choice that too many families will face this winter unless the decision is reversed.

I remind everyone that the cut is not inevitable and that it is not happening because it is expected to improve the lives of those who will be affected—we know that it will not do that. A conscious decision has been made to remove support from people who rely on the uplift as a lifeline that allows basic needs to be met and them to live with a modicum of dignity.

The Prime Minister has repeatedly defended the cut by suggesting that taking money away from people who receive universal credit will encourage them to take up work—we have heard that repeated today.

It is a pity that the leader of the Scottish Conservatives is not staying to hear the concerns about the cut that his UK colleagues are going to make to universal credit.

We should not need to have this debate. We should not have to consider the hardship that the UK Government’s decision—[Interruption.]