Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you very much—that is really helpful. If you have not yet forecast for the doubling of the Scottish child payment, is it unlikely that that payment will be doubled in this budget?

Good morning to you all. Thank you for coming and speaking with us.

We heard from Councillor Evison from COSLA and from the SCVO about two areas on which I will ask questions.

A number of social care services are being pulled due to pressures that are a result of the pandemic, but it is fair to say that some of those pressures existed long before the pandemic. Will you outline what percentage increase in investment in social care would be needed not just to reach the minimum core of human rights of disabled people but to progressively realise those rights and, in doing so, address some of the inequalities that women face?

On your budget line, is the Scottish Government doing all that it can with the powers that it holds to lift disabled people, unpaid carers and women out of poverty? When do you intend to take full control of devolved benefits to ensure that those groups are not left behind at the hands of the Department for Work and Pensions?

I recognise that there is a lot in there but, being short of time, I wanted to get it all in.

Thank you.

Good morning. Thanks for joining us. I will ask a question about the rights of three groups of people in two spending areas. It is quite specific and is probably directed at Councillor Evison and Paul Bradley.

First, we have seen in recent weeks extreme shortages of social care staff, which have resulted in some services having to be stopped, some people not getting the services they need and some unpaid carers having to pick up the slack. At the very basic level, it has meant that a large number of people in Scotland today have not had the minimum core of their basic human rights. I just want to understand, particularly from Councillor Evison, the impact of the local government funding settlement and the funding for social care on the recruitment crisis; the impact of increasing wages in the sector to address that, particularly the £15 an hour minimum wage proposal; and the impact on the equalities and human rights of disabled people and women.

Secondly, I wonder whether Paul Bradley can tell us about the ways in which the third sector has had to step in at times not just over the past year but over many years to provide essential services. What is your assessment of the funding settlement? What could we be doing not only to improve the human rights of the people whom I have mentioned but to ensure not only that these people get not just the minimum core of basic human rights but that we progress things and realise their right to an adequate standard of living and an independent life?

Good morning, Rhoda. The statement of reasons highlights the extensive consultation that was carried out in the previous session—both the official consultation and the Co-operative Party’s email campaign—with 93 per cent of respondents in favour of the proposal. Do you think that that majority support still reflects public opinion? If there has been a change, what do you think that it is? What would be the effect of a delay?

The disability benefits will be key. You will be aware of the report on the experience of poverty in Scotland that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation published yesterday. It tells us that 100,000 of the families that are living in poverty have a disabled person in them. Therefore, there is a more pressing need than ever to assess the adequacy of disability assistance, as well as eligibility. Is there any scope to move that forward, particularly given the number of staff who were added to Social Security Scotland last week? Have you considered introducing a supplement for the Scottish child payment to lift those the families out of poverty?

I am satisfied that the consultation was comprehensive and did not ask organisations that were consulted previously, which would have put more pressure on them by asking them to comment again. I am satisfied with the statement of reasons and vote yes.

We heard earlier this morning from a representative of the SCVO. You will be aware that in its evidence to the committee, the SCVO said that it had asked our predecessor committee in 2019 for there to be significant changes to decision making and the way that the Government funds organisations, including giving much more notice and certainty. The SCVO said that, so far, the response from the Government has been “underwhelming” and there have been “insignificant advances”. Can you provide an update on the consideration that you have given those requests from 2019?

Also, I was quite surprised to hear that a sector with more than 100,000 staff and a £6 billion turnover does not feature in the Scottish Government’s economic strategy. Can you undertake to make a representation to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy to address that?

Absolutely.

An additional 392,000 people have become carers overnight due to the pandemic. Not all of those people will be able to access some of the funding, but a significant number of them can, and we need to show them that we recognise the work that they have done this year.

In the past year, I have spoken to carers who have told me that they are undervalued and feel invisible, exhausted and broken. Before I go any further on the reasons why I would like the committee to support amendment 6, I thank all the unpaid carers in Scotland for the work that they have done, regardless of whether it has been recognised with a financial uplift. I also thank paid carers, without whom I would not be sitting here today.

Unpaid carers have worked 24/7 with no break for a year and they are absolutely exhausted. It is important to remember that, before the pandemic, carers in Scotland were poorer than the average due to a combination of factors including access to secure, adequately paid, flexible employment and additional disability-related costs such as higher energy and transport costs.

Family Fund notes that, in 2019 alone, a third of the families that it supported saw an income reduction in their household. A third of carers are struggling to pay utility bills, 47 per cent have been in debt, and half are struggling to make ends meet and are cutting back on food and heating as a result. All of us round the table can agree that that is unacceptable.

Carers were then hit even harder by the effects of lockdown. Family Fund says that 78 per cent reported that their overall financial situation had got worse. Half of the families that were surveyed had seen their income fall as a result of the coronavirus pandemic, furlough and increased caring responsibilities. At the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee the other day, we heard that many women have had to give up paid work in order to undertake unpaid caring, which has cost them in excess of £15 million a day.

Uplifting benefits for carers by doubling the carers allowance supplement during the pandemic was absolutely the right thing to do, but the pandemic is nowhere near over. This week, some Opposition parties and the Government agreed with that principle when they made the same argument about the need to retain the uplift in universal credit.

The Scottish Government has promised to introduce Scottish carers assistance, which will be a new benefit that replaces carers allowance. However, we know that it will be a considerable time before the issues to do with the rate of and eligibility for carers assistance are addressed. That means that unpaid carers in Scotland are having to wait too long for the promised reforms and to have more money in their pockets. Today, we have a chance to keep the uplift permanently until carers assistance is introduced, and carers agree with that approach.

Carers Scotland estimates that, every day of the Covid-19 pandemic, unpaid carers have saved the Scottish Government £43 million. A contributor to the report, who is an unpaid carer, says that the supplement should be doubled permanently. They said:

“If the government had to pay for outside agencies to do the work of carers it would cost a lot more. Carers are completely undervalued and forgotten about.”

I fundamentally believe that we have an opportunity to ensure that we retain the uplift while the teeth of the pandemic are still biting. Doubling the supplement this year was the right thing to do, and it is right to give carers certainty for the future until we have reviewed carers assistance. I urge the committee to vote for amendment 6 and ensure that we do not make the payment only once a year, as is proposed in amendment 1. Unpaid carers are not just for Christmas but are much more valuable, and the payment should be made twice a year.

I urge the committee to support carers, thank them for their work and value them. Please support my amendment and give them extra money in their pockets.

I take the member’s point. You are right about the number of people who will miss out. Carers allowance supplement is available to only one in 10 people who provide unpaid care across Scotland, so it is correct to say that it does not meet the needs of all unpaid carers in Scotland. However, no element of the bill meets the needs of all unpaid carers in Scotland. Applying the uplift at this point recognises that the people who are captured by the bill—the people who will get the supplement—get a supplement that is representative of the amount of money that we, as a Parliament, this week agreed was a better reflection of the amount of money that people need to live on. We have an opportunity today to apply that uplift for unpaid carers, which is why it is important to use that mechanism.

The Government and almost all parties around the table—at least the ones in opposition—agreed that that uplift was essential, and I think that we need to do all that we can. You ask whether I feel that it is the best mechanism. It is not the best mechanism, because it is missing nine in 10 carers. However, it is the only mechanism that we have and, as the Government has said, it is the fastest mechanism that we have right now to put money in unpaid carers’ pockets. That is why I strongly support this amendment, and, if it is possible for me to do so, I will press the amendment.