Chamber and committees

Perhaps the cabinet secretary has intervened slightly too early. I did not talk about culture or process; I talked about eligibility, and the eligibility rules, except for those on terminal illness, are identical in the two systems. It is important to get that on the record.

Can I have a point of order before I close?

When I lodged my amendments, I confess that I did not expect great success with many of them, but I expected cross-party support for this amendment because the Scottish Government has been uprating assistance for inflation since it has had powers over the benefits that are run here in Scotland. It has uprated benefits for inflation appropriately.

The reason for amendment 6 is to future proof the bill for future Governments. There would be mass outcry from this Parliament if the UK Government did not uprate for inflation benefits that it has control of every year. The disability community and many others in society would be outraged, so the same thing should be done in Scotland. The benefits that are run in Scotland should go up with inflation—that seems a fair and appropriate thing to do.

I appreciate that that comes with a cost, but if assistance is not uprated for inflation, surely that cost will be met by the disabled and the most vulnerable in our society. When I lodged the amendment, I felt that it was more of a technical amendment, because it allows the Scottish Government to do something that it has done previously and which I hope it will do again in the next 14 to 15 months. The amendment future proofs the uprating by future Governments that might have a different view.

The amendment is reasonable and proportionate, and I hope that the committee will support it.

I move amendment 6.

In that case, I press my amendment.

Thank you—that is helpful. The question is, that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

I welcome the cabinet secretary’s commitment to lodge an amendment at stage 3. I look forward to seeing it and I hope that it will be as she has set out.

If I may, I will make one quick remark. Rightly, Mr Stewart and the cabinet secretary have talked about the cost—and there is a cost. However, we must also think of it as an investment in some of our most vulnerable people. I would find it very hard to imagine any Government not wanting to invest in the most vulnerable in our society by uprating assistance for inflation.

No.

I think that there is a moral duty on a Government to do that. I acknowledge that the cabinet secretary and her predecessors have done so, but I am seeking to ensure that that practice continues into the future—and I think that the Scottish Government is seeking to do that, too.

I welcome the Scottish Government’s move and I look forward to seeing the amendment that it will lodge. On that basis, I will not press amendment 6.

Amendment 6, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 7 not moved.

Just for the avoidance of doubt, I remind members that I am in receipt of a higher rate of personal independence payment. I am also a former member of the tribunals service.

I accept the cabinet secretary’s point. However, we are at stage 2. If the amendment were to be agreed to today, I am sure that she could pick up a telephone or send an email to the new cabinet secretary down south to find out how they would react and, at stage 3, we could have the debate again.

Mr Doris and the cabinet secretary have picked up on the challenges of doing this through primary legislation rather than by regulations. As the deputy convener will know, however, the trouble with regulations is that you cannot vote against just one bit of them—you have to either accept them all or reject them all. Regulations might come forward from the Government in which 99 per cent is right, but 1 per cent is the key financial thing. I would not want to vote against somebody getting something except by amendment, which is why primary legislation is a better way of doing this.

I accept the cabinet secretary’s comments about budget, but that is about political choices. She often makes the point to me in the chamber that we have political choices. The money that the Scottish Government has would be much better spent on supporting carers than on some of the other projects that the Government seems to be pushing forward. For that reason, I will be moving amendment 3.

As for amendment 4, I accept what the cabinet secretary has said, and I will go away and reflect on it. For that reason, I will not be moving that amendment, but I reserve the right to see what happens at stage 3.

As I spent the summer considering possible amendments to the bill, this amendment was one that came forward as I was drafting. It happened before the announcement by the UK Government, and the announcement by the Scottish Government, in regard to winter heating payments.

The decision that the UK Government has made is very disappointing, and it affects many individuals. I understand why the Scottish Government made its decision, but that was also a disappointing announcement.

Amendment 5 does not seek to give all older people a kind of winter heating payment; it seeks to give such a payment to a specific vulnerable group in our society.

We all know that many older people spend a lot more time at home than other people do. We understand that older people often live in houses that do not have the best heating or insulation but are unable to move, for many different reasons. Amendment 5 says that those who are on attendance allowance—or on the new Scottish benefit that is equivalent to that—and so are over 65, and are on the high rate, should receive the winter heating payment. We already do that for children under 16 who are on a high rate of care, because the Parliament and the Government recognise that those children are often at home and so their heating costs are higher.

The amendment seems to me to offer a reasonable mitigation of where we are at the moment. It will give those who are at home the most the protection of some financial help in meeting their winter heating payments.

We all understand that next month heating prices are likely to go up across the UK. We recognise that many people in Scotland live in colder conditions than other people in the United Kingdom.

It is a political choice to say that we want to look after and protect the most vulnerable people in our society. To me, that seems to be the right way forward. We were right to pass legislation that allowed the Government and, ultimately, the Parliament to create new benefits. This new benefit would help people who are at home, who are often cold. It is not often that I agree with Richard Leonard, but, at last week’s meeting of the cross-party group on older people, age and ageing, he pointed out that he was concerned that we might go back to the conditions of the 1970s and 1980s, and that we will see people dying in their homes because they are cold. We need to mitigate that risk as much as we can. The people who are most likely to be affected are those with disabilities, who cannot move around as much as others.

My proposal is not part of a wish list or just something that we could do. We need to do it if we are to protect the most vulnerable people in our society.

I move amendment 5.