 The next item of business is debate on motion 1.6.012, in the name of Mark Griffin, on the Carers Allowance Supplement. Can I ask those who wish to speak in the debate to press the request to speak buttons? I call on Mark Griffin to speak to you and move the motion for up to seven minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I want to start this debate by thanking carers for this tremendous work that they do every single day caring for loved ones. Tomorrow, the Scottish Parliament will consider its first set of instruments to upgrade a devolved social security benefit carers allowance. Unlike the passing of the best start grant and funeral expense instruments, this moment should not simply pass as by. This should be a moment when new powers are used for real change for people in Scotland. Those are critical regulations that will boost the incomes of carers, but an increase of 2.4 per cent, equivalent to September's CPI rate, does not go far enough. That is why we are challenging the Government to abandon CPI and to re-adopt RPI for up-rating Scottish social security. Making it clear, our new powers will be used to invest in the people of Scotland with carers afforded the dignity and respect that they deserve. I would like to make a bit of progress. I will take the member later on. Our motion today builds on the call that the national carer organisations made in their submission to the social security bill, where they said that this should be linked to retail price index, not consumer price index. Added to that, voices across the third sector support the motion. The Alliance, SCVO, Energy Action Scotland and Marie Curie, to name a few, have all been in touch to say that they support using RPI. Used by Labour to up-rate social security, RPI is generally more generous and, crucially, takes account of housing costs. The change to CPI, the rate that the Government is offering now, was one of George Osborne's first welfare cuts in 2010. I will take Jeremy Balfour. Jeremy Balfour, can you tell me how much would it cost to implement the plan this year and the next following two years? Mark Griffin. I have done the work on the modelling. I estimate that it would cost £3 million, a point that I will come to you later on in the speech. I think that this is more about the cost of up-rating carers allowance. This is about a principle in social security. When we look at the whole range of devolved benefits and how we upgrade them to make sure that they keep up with the cost of living. As I said, that change to CPI, the rate that the Government is offering now, was one of George Osborne's first welfare cuts in 2010. It seems that the SNP Government is entirely content with that, displaying dramatic support for CPI in its motion and arguments lifted straight from a George Osborne budget. RPI is no panacea, no measure is. In this case, carers are being shortchanged with the Government using the cheapest possible option. Kate Forbes. I thank the member for making the intervention. I agree with his point about carers being important. This is less than a week since stage 3 of the budget. Why was this not a Labour party ask in the budget? Mark Griffin. As I have already said, that is much wider than a single-year budget. That is about the full range of devolved benefits. That is about setting a precedent as we go on for using the cheapest possible option to upgrade devolved social security benefits. At this point, Labour are saying, no, we are not happy with that. Carers and everyone who relies on social security deserve better. When it comes to peak rail fares, surprisingly, the SNP are happy for those to be uprated by RPI. The public sector pay increase will be 3 per cent. Figures released today show bus fares have risen by 3 per cent and council tax bills look set to rise by 4.8 per cent. Why are we giving carers just 2.4 per cent? According to the TUC, the switch to CPI in social security has cost people billions. The policy sits on the same shelf as the benefits freeze, with the impact accumulating every single year. It is a cut to save the Government money at the expense of people in need and is responsible for pushing families, carers and disabled people to food banks as they struggle to make ends meet. The cabinet secretary knows it. Her own briefings confirm that the Tory-led coalition uprating policies will have slashed £1.9 billion from incomes by 2021 in Scotland. Time and time again, we hear from SNP speakers rightly calling out the Tory Government for cuts to social security amounting to £3.9 billion in Scotland by 2021. However, it will lose all credibility in using that figure now, since it wholeheartedly supports George Orr's Burns change from RPI to CPI, which again, according to the cabinet secretary's own briefing, has contributed significantly to £1.9 billion of those cuts. We can use our powers to support 82,000 carers with an extra £33 next year and depart from that Tory cut. The Government rightly points out that the supplement supported right across the chamber is an uplift that is truly appreciated by carers, but ministers surely do not think that that is the limit of the support that we offer carers. After all, next year, the supplement will still be £150 short of the extra £600 that the First Minister promised in 2015. In space calculates, a move to RPI would cost £3 million next year. Our motion proposes that it is paid through the supplement because we recognise that that would be the only way to do it. That is because the SNP's deal with the DWP costs an estimated £6 million next year. That means that we cannot change a single part of the underlying carers allowance until at least autumn next year. That means that we cannot block the aggressive recovery action against those who have been overpaid or help recipients access full-time education. As Mary Curie points out, we cannot extend the time carers receive the allowance when their loved one sadly dies or goes into hospital long term. I want to point out one final quirk of the decision to stick with agency agreements. The Government proposes that the earnings threshold for carers allowance should rise by just £3 next year. That means that a carer who earns a penny more than £123 cliff edge risks losing their allowance entirely. Out of step, with the increases in the national and real living wages, that is clearly a disincentive to carers working. The SPICE analysis shows that a carer on the national living wage would be allowed to work a maximum of 15 hours a week. That is 20 minutes fewer than they were able to work this year or they lose that allowance altogether. What advice will the cabinet secretary give to a carer who has to go to their employer and ask that they reduce their working hours or lose carers allowance? That is not right. It is too high a burden on Scotland's carers and an area where carers and organisations have repeatedly demanded change. We have powers to take a different path to show that social security is an investment in the people of Scotland. Now is the time to set the precedent and re-adopt RPI in Scotland's social security system. I move the amendment in my name. It is a motion that you have to move. Thank you very much. We are already over time for this debate, so it is going to have to come off of other speakers. I call Shirley-Anne Somerville for up to five minutes, please. When it comes to carers, the financial commitment of this Government is clear through the carers allowance supplement. We have already put an extra £442 into the pockets of more than 77 carers. That is an increase in carers allowance of 13 per cent and an investment of more than £33 million through the benefit alone. In five years, time carers in Scotland will be receiving approximately £491 more than carers outwith Scotland due to our supplement. We have also committed to the introduction of a young carers grant and will introduce a new payment for carers who are responsible for more than one disabled child. All of that new money is, of course, in the context of new social care support and rights for carers through the Carers Scotland Act which came into force last year. This Government has fully funded the implementation of the carers act, including providing an additional £10.5 million in 2019-20 to enable local government to meet the projected increase in demand for support of the act. I will take an intervention from— Claudia Beamish. I thank the cabinet secretary for taking an intervention. When the up-list was announced by the First Minister when I happened to be in the co-convening of the cross-party group for carers in 2015, it was due to be worth £600 in annum, but at the launch, as the cabinet secretary knows, in 2018 it was 442 per annum. Does the member not accept that there is still a long way to go to meet the First Minister's commitment? Shirley-Anne Somerville. Well, again, I would make the point to Claudia Beamish and to the other Labour members who will take part in this debate. If you are concerned about the amount for the carers allowance supplement, where were you during the budget? Where were your proposals on this? Because we are but a week since that process has passed and I did not see any serious proposals coming in from anyone in the Labour Party on carers or anything else. Presiding Officer, the response to the carers allowance supplement has been hugely positive and we know that we are doing the right thing in making this increase. When it comes to upgrading, we will do the right thing too. Our proposal is based on evidence and importantly internationally accepted good practice. The measure that we propose is the one that accurately reflects the cost of living in the consumer price index. I agree with the Conservative amendment in that we should always keep under review any alternative methods, so I would like to give Miles Briggs and the rest of the chamber my full reassurance that this is something that we already do. For example, we have considered CPIH, which is also recommended by the ONS. CPIH is similar to CPIH in how it is calculated, but it includes additional items. However, for over the past nine years, CPIH inflation has been lowered than CPIH in seven of those years, so using that would have delivered a lower increase to carers. Through CPIH from this April, Scotland's carers will see their carers allowance increase from £64.60 to £66.15 weekly. That approach is in line with the agency agreement that we have set up with the DWP to deliver carers allowance on our behalf, and the agreement enabled us to get much-needed increases into the pockets of carers as early as last summer, a matter of weeks after the Social Security Scotland that was granted through the introduction of the carers allowance supplement. Elaine Smith I thank the member for taking intervention, but I wonder if she could answer the question as to why CPIH is used for rail fares, but CPIH is used for carers. Shirley-Anne Somerville There are historical areas where it is particularly used, but it is discouraged by the Office of National Statistics. I will come on to a point, and we are setting up a new system here. It is important that we listen to that good practice and advice. When we take over full delivery of carers assistance, we will work with stakeholders to agree a mechanism to upgrade carers assistance. That will, of course, be done with members of the Parliament. I am happy to discuss any ideas and hear the views from all the parties and members as our social security system develops. What I will not do is agree to what is considered by experts to be a poor measure of inflation. CPIH is used for the Bank of England's inflation target, the Office of National Statistics describes CPIH as a measure produced to international standards and in line with European regulations. By contrast, here is what the Office of National Statistics says about the Retail Price Index, or RPI. Overall, RPI is a very poor measure of general inflation, at times greatly overestimating and at other times greatly underestimating changes in prices and how those changes are experienced. Not only is RPIH widely regarded as an inappropriate inflation measure, it has been viewed as such over five years. In 2013, the UK Statistics Authority, the arms length body that oversees the Office of National Statistics, said that RPIH has been assessed against the code of practice for official statistics and found not to meet the required standard for designation as national statistics. The consensus among economists and statisticians is that RPIH does not meet international standards. That is an opinion shared by many, except those in my parliamentary colleagues in the Labour Party. I appreciate that a discussion has to be had about levels of benefits. That is right and that is proper. The place for that is during the budget process that we have just been through and of which Labour were not to be seen. It is vital that we keep the decisions on upgrading of benefits separate from benefit levels. Our aim in choosing an upgrading mechanism is to ensure that the benefit levels that we agree on maintain their value over time, and the CPI is the best mechanism to do just that. Miles Briggs, up to four minutes please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. The support that we provide and well-being of Scotland's carers is something that we should all be concerned. I therefore welcome the Labour Party bringing this debate forward today. As an MSP, I have attended every summer of the Scottish Young Carers festival. The festival provides a chance for young carers to have a break from their caring role, meet other young carers, take part in consultation, but, perhaps most importantly, just to have fun. What always has amazed me is how these young Scots often do not even see themselves as young carers. It is just their mum or dad or brother or sister. There are at least 759,000 carers of the age of 16 and above in Scotland and 29,000 young carers. The value of care provided by carers in Scotland is estimated to be the equivalent to the taxpayer of £10 billion a year. It is important that we remind ourselves today that three out of five of us will become carers at some stage in our lives, and one in 10 of us already are fulfilling some of those caring roles. How we support carers in Scotland today and in the future is therefore incredibly important. It is vital that we get our social support system right and fit for purpose, and that is why we have supported and called for the introduction of the carers allowance supplement and why we on these benches support a wider look at how we support Scotland's carers and the challenges that they face. The useful briefing, which has already been mentioned, which Marie Curie provided ahead of today's debate, outlined how many people caring for someone with a terminal illness do not get identified as carers, so do not get the support, including access to benefits, they may be entitled to. There are many opportunities, therefore. I think that we need to look at identifying carers who are supporting someone at the end of their life, and clearly this needs to be improved. I very much welcome initiatives such as a pop-up hub for carers that we saw last week at Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh to help to provide this information and reach out to identify carers. Scottish Conservatives want to see carers supported in Scotland to make sure that they are able to live healthy, fulfilling lives, and the crucial role that they play in our communities is both recognised and valued. For that to happen, a range of good-quality support needs to be on hand to carers at the right time and place. My amendment for today's debate calls on ministers to investigate the use of alternative methods in going forward and uprating. Every party in this chamber has made a commitment to deliver a Scottish social security system based on dignity and respect and one that recognises the immense value that carers bring to our society. We on these benches want to look towards how we can further support and thank Scotland's carers. Scottish Conservatives have long campaigned on behalf of carers from measures such as the increase in carers allowance to our campaign for local authorities to give short breaks to carers. SNP ministers should be open to different methods of upgrading benefits and to look at them. It is also important that we see that in the wider context of the benefit system and the wider package of support for carers in Scotland. The delay, for example, in delivering free bus travel to those in receipt of the young carers grant until 2020-21 has been raised with me by many young carers groups in my own region of Lothian, and I believe that this is something that ministers can look at and should make more of a priority. To conclude, my amendment today asks ministers to investigate the use of alternative methods of upgrading the full sum of carers allowance, as well as the carers allowance supplement. Scottish Conservatives believe that it is important that we get this right, and we take a considered and long-term approach to those issues. My amendment will give Parliament this evening the opportunity to do just that. I move the amendment in my name. For the benefit of the official report, I forgot to say that earlier that was amendment 16012.1. I thank carers in Scotland enough, yet it remains the case that people who care are undervalued and underpaid. Despite the fact that unpaid carers save the Scottish economy, some £10.8 billion annually, there remains a vast mismatch between the value of care and the support carers receive. Three out of five of us will become carers at some point in our lives, yet the value of work that carers do is not fully recognised, and payments to carers do not recognise the enormous contribution made by unpaid carers. The Scottish Greens stood on a manifesto commitment in 2016 to campaign for an increase in carers allowance payments to £93.15 per week. That would be £96.90 per week today. We will support the Labour motion, which calls for the use of an operating mechanism that is more generous to carers. I appreciate that the Scottish Government made a manifesto commitment to increase carers allowance to the same level as jobseekers allowance. That is progress. I welcome it, but I will continue to urge the Government and indeed the Parliament to go further. Greens have long called for a lower threshold for hours of care and, importantly, for more flexibility. Surely one person caring for two people, yet still reaching that threshold, should be receiving carers allowance. I know that the previous cabinet secretary was not unsympathetic to those calls and I look forward to the cabinet secretary's response. I am pleased that the Scottish Government has taken up the call in that green 2016 manifesto for a young carers grant. The First Minister responded to that call quickly. I have four minutes. I would like to progress. Evidence suggests that it is the most financially vulnerable young people who are most likely to have caring responsibilities. The grant will enable young carers support worth £300 per year. It will contribute to ensuring that young carers can take part in activities such as going to the cinema, perhaps having some driving lessons, for example. However, we have to ensure that 29,000 young people in Scotland who care are properly and fully supported and that their education and personal development are prioritised. Carers UK's caring and family finances inquiry found that 70 per cent of carers were £10,000 a year worse off and that one in three had seen a drop of £20,000 a year in their household income as a result of caring. Being a carer can lead to additional financial costs such as an increase in household bills. That is why we urgently need to examine increasing the value of social security payments to carers. The carers allowance top-up is a good first step but more can be done. As part of its work on preparing for the delivery of carers assistance, I would like to see the Scottish Government doing all that it can to properly understand the financial impact of caring on carers and to understand what the devolved social security system can do to help. We also need to look at how we value particularly intensive forms of care. Current rules only allow payments in respect of one cared for person but we know thousands of Scots care for more than one person. That brings additional costs. The Government intends to do that, where people care for more than one disabled child. That is welcome, but let's take a broader view and consider everyone who cares for more than one person. There is also an unfairness under current UK rules that people caring for more than one person but less than 35 hours miss out entirely. I will raise again today the issue of take-up. Carer payments have a particular issue with take-up. I think that Mark Griffin mentioned this. Some people do not even realise that they are a carer. They do not see themselves as carers in a formal sense. Take-up of the best start grant suggests that we can do more to increase take-up. I would be interested to hear the minister's comments on that issue too. Without carers, the independence and quality of life for many is reduced. The burden on our health service has increased. It is one of the most important jobs in our society. Those of us in this Parliament have a duty to make sure that all carers, paid and unpaid, are valued and have the support that they deserve. Alex Cole-Hamilton, up to four minutes, please. I thank the Labour Party for securing time for this today. It is important that we recognise the input and contribution that our unpaid carers make to our society. It is something that I recognise that they raise time and time again. It is right for them to challenge us in this way. On any given day, there are 171,000 carers in Scotland who are working on a more than full-time basis. We could not hope to pay them a salary. We could not hope to pay them for the work that they deliver. However, instead, this state relies and arguably exploits the love that they have for their family members and those around them and the caring responsibility that they feel as it naturally exists in terms of their relationship. It is absolutely right that you keep raising this. The hostile environment that exists in terms of public policy is very real when it comes to carers. In terms of identification, only 9 per cent of those presenting at GPs who are carers recognise their caring status. That is particularly worse for young carers, and it is something that children who are growing up only knowing one reality do not often recognise that they are any different from anyone else, and it is absolutely vital that we get to them. There are often hurdles that people have to cross when getting the family relative for whom they are caring and official diagnosis, because no support is triggered until that diagnosis is forthcoming. Once that diagnosis exists, there is the difficult and opaque landscape of public benefits that people have to navigate. That should be something that we can unite across the chamber. My party and the SNP had a very similar policy on going into the Scottish parliamentary elections of 2016 of uplifting the carers allowance to the level of job seekers allowance. That is why we will support their amendment tonight. It was on 10 September last year that we finally got that over the line, and we gave carers that additional £452 per year. It is a significant uplift. I have sympathy with what Labour is trying to do here, but I believe that the shifting from the CPI to the RPI will only amount to a small amount of money per individual. We have to look at the whole package of support that we offer. If we want to give our carers more money—which we should probably aspire to do—we should give them meaningful uplifts beyond the rate of inflation. We should also look to the paucity of rest-bite care—less than a quarter of full-time carers receive any kind of rest-bite support. That is not because they do not know about it, it is just because it does not exist in a lot of parts of this country or is beyond their financial reach or the amount that the local authorities or those around them have agreed that they will support them to that end. I also support, I have to say, Marie Curie's call, and I thank them for the briefing that they gave us. They always give us briefings around the support that they offer carers, but their call for extending the payment threshold after the person who is being cared for has died. We often forget what a tumultuous time that is. Obviously, it is a devastating time for the carer when they lose the person that they have been caring for. On top of that, we expect them as a state to go back to normalcy, to restart full-time employment or whatever. We need to go far beyond the extension of eight weeks of payment after death to the full six months that Marie Curie suggests. I think that that will give carers that opportunity to get their feet back under them and to start to re-establish a working life. I thank Labour for taking the time to give us this debate in Parliament today. I understand what they are trying to do, but we also need to look at this in the round. I look forward to working with them in the coming weeks and months to establishing common ground in this area. We now move to the open debate. We are already over time for this debate, so can I ask all speakers to aim for three and a half minutes, please? As thousands of carers across Scotland are struggling on a daily basis to maintain their living standards and a decent quality of life, yet again what we are seeing today is the Scottish Government not using the full powers that are available to the Parliament. We really need to be clear in this debate that a decision by the UK Government to move from RPI to using CPI has resulted in a real drop in income for those households that can least afford it. The amendment from the minister asserts that there is consensus among economists and statisticians that RPI is not a reliable measure. Members of this Parliament should note that, only last month, the House of Lords' Economics Affairs Select Committee reported that, we disagree with the UK Statistics Authority that RPI does not have the potential to become a good measure of inflation. With the improvements to RPI recommended, we believe that RPI would be a viable candidate for the single general measure of inflation. That does not sound like a consensus against using RPI to me. The TUC does not agree with the Scottish Government either. The recent TUC report, which is about pick-pocketing statistics, is pointed out that the evidence quoted by the UK Government and the Scottish Government to support CPI use is very weak. Housing costs are an important part of everybody's expenditure in Scotland, as we know, yet they are not included in CPI calculations, whereas the RPI includes them. The TUC points out that RPI is based more tightly around the spending patterns of workers in CPI. The RPI excludes most expenditure by pensioners dependent on state pensions, by tourists and by the ultra-wealthy. Further, the RPI and CPI use different statistical methods, and that matters, as the TUC points out. In a detailed report by Dr Mark Courtney, the key finding is that almost 80 per cent of the difference between RPI and CPI is caused by the fact that CPI underestimates the real change in the cost of living facing workers. The rising cost of living, financial pressures and households is adding to an unacceptable gap between rich and poor in this country, between those who can afford to provide a neat three meals a day and those who can't, between those who can close their families and those who can't, and between those who can afford to travel to visit frail relatives and those who can't. For carers, already working long hours providing essential support and care, a small increase in income is so significant, so I would disagree with what Alec Cole-Hamilton just said. As it accumulates year on year, it can make the difference for better food, for a warmer home or for being part of community activities. Overall, it seems that organisations that take our money use the higher inflation figure, the RPI, whereas those paying us use the lower figure, the CPI. Our social security system should be based on the RPI measures. It might not be perfect, but it is the best measure that we have. Given that the majority of carers are women, I presume that a full equality impact assessment has been undertaken on the differential impact of using the lower inflation figure CPI for upgrading. I would ask the minister to confirm findings in this regard and summing up. Most members in this chamber will speak warm words about supporting carers, but actions speak louder than words, and that means taking action in Scotland now using all of our powers to raise the living standard of carers. We can do that and we can do it now and we should do it. I will start by saying that social security is a human right. At the core of social security Scotland, we see the principles of dignity, fairness and respect. Social security is indeed an investment in the people of Scotland. I am pleased that we have a fraction of the powers that have been devolved to us. However, I would certainly like to see that increased, as has been said in the chamber before, and it is a means for the Scottish people to escape the UK version of social security through the DWP. I am not going to have time, but I would like to see the Labour motion today looking at that and that is something that we could get behind. There is a large diversity in carers and they come from all backgrounds and are faced with a large array of challenges. I notice that this is a regular tender at the Lanarkshire Carers Forum, which meets in Coatbridge on a monthly basis. Some of the challenges that carers are faced with are both strenuous, emotional and physical demands, but financial, which is sometimes overlooked, many carers give up their careers and professional opportunities to care and then find themselves struggling financially. That is why the carers allowance allowance was introduced in recognition of the vital contribution that carers make to society. I was quite taken by Miles Briggs's speech earlier, and it reminded me when I was a teenager myself. As a family, we looked after my gran. It is just something that we did. There was not any sort of anything put in around it. It was just that everybody mucked in in that situation, and I think that it is important that that is happening every single day in that it should be recognised. Through the carers allowance supplement, as the minister has said, an additional £442 has been put into more than 77,000 carers last year, an increase of 13 per cent and an investment in Scotland's carers of more than 33 million, and in 1920 that will rise to £452.40 a year, and that is money going straight to carers. Probably, like other MSPs in the chamber, I have heard some really positive feedback relating to the way that it has been rolled out. One carer who relayed her story to me spoke of a very positive experience being entitled to an allowance. We were so uplifted that she was not required to fill out any forums or prove that she was a carer, because she was already an registered carer, and that was enough for her to automatically qualify. I am sure that we can agree that, when you are a carer, one of the last things you want to do is spend time filling out long, intrusive forums to get something that you are entitled to. In the carer, this particular carer also noted that this was a very dignified approach, backed up by a letter that was wordly positively commented on coming in a white envelope, as opposed to a brown one. I know that, as I said earlier, others will have similar experiences relayed to them. I know that we are up to three and a half minutes, so I just want to go straight to where I was going to conclude. I want to mention a fantastic young carer from my constituency, 17-year-old Megan Boss. Megan cares for both her parents on a daily basis while continuing her studies at Colbridge High. It was no wonder that Megan was recently awarded with the inspirational Young Women of the Year award. Like many young carers, Megan looked after herself and her parents from her young age, but she did so in silence until she met action for children at the school assembly and finally got the support that she needed. It has allowed Megan the opportunity to socialise and take part in clubs. Most normal teenagers would take for granted, but it has made such a big difference to her life. It is important that we recognise the role of young carers in our society, and I will end by putting on record the opportunity again to congratulate Megan on her award. Can I agree with one comment that was made by Mark Griffin in his speech? What we are talking about today is a wider issue around carers and caring. It is important that we do widen out the debate. Everyone will rightly say how much we rely on unpaid carers in this country. As previous speakers have already said, we simply could not meet that cost if it was not for sacrifices that some of them have made. For example, I would not be here today speaking in Mr Bates if it was not for an unpaid carer helping me this morning to get ready. As we do widen Mr Bates, I would like to suggest that we need to come together across different political parties. Over time, not just immediately but over time, look at how we develop this and how we bring more people on board and give more people support. The system is good, but I think that it could be better and it could reach more people without necessarily increasing the cost dramatically. Can I, in my short intervention, give three areas that I would welcome cross-party discussions on as we go forward in years ahead? The first one was picked up by Alison Johnstone. I am allegedly a criteria that you have to reach 35 hours before you get any payment made to you. For many people, that is a very high figure, a very high number. I understand why it is there and I can understand the rationale behind it. However, there will be people who care for people 20, 25 or other hours or that. I wonder whether it is worth cross-party work or whether there could be a tiering system to the benefit. I appreciate that that becomes administratively difficult and much more difficult to implement. The advantage of the 35-hour system is that it is very straightforward in many ways to implement it. However, I think that there are many carers across Scotland who provide vital care below that 35-hour period that are simply being missed out. It is worth at least exploring whether there could be a tiered payment. The second area is in regard to the person who has been cared for who has to be on benefit before that carer can get the money. I do have a thing that discriminates against certain individuals, particularly older people and other individuals who may have an illness, may have a disability, but it does not get them into a recognised benefit. However, they still need care help. I appreciate that the administration behind that will make it more difficult. We do not want to make the system over bureaucratic, but I think that we have to look at and see whether there are people who are not on benefit but who are being cared for. The third area in that particular applies to younger carers. That is in regard to the travelling time to give that care. We have taken evidence in the circuitry committee that there are young carers who may be studying in Glasgow but their parent lives in Edinburgh and are travelling through two or three times a week. However, the travelling time between Glasgow and arriving at the parental home and going back to wherever they are staying in Glasgow is not included in that 35 hours. That can often add a lot more time. I think that we need to just take that into consideration. Establishment of the Scottish Parliament's unpaid carers has ensured that their voices were heard. We were told about what they do, what they save this country and how important it is that people recognise the role that they play in looking after their loved ones. From the very beginning of the Parliament, they have imposed their demands upon us and it is essential that we continue to listen to them. We now know, of course, that the impact of cuts to public services to social care is, in our communities, as we speak, being picked up by unpaid carers in increasing amounts. It is essential, therefore, that we do not just say how much we care about carers. Across the Parliament, I have no doubt that we all care about unpaid carers and want to make a difference to their lives. However, it is not good enough simply to settle for the warm words. We have to do the heavy lifting, particularly in Government, of translating that into a real difference in people's lives. I hear what Alec Cole-Hamilton has said and what Jeremy Balfour has said about the broader questions, but we should not make good the enemy of excellence. We are not pretending in this motion that we are going to transform the lives of carers completely. There is an issue about carer centres and the support that they are giving. There is an issue about the way in which the system looks after young carers and so on. That is a very simple proposal that would make a difference right now to the lives of unpaid carers. Why on earth would we resist it? It is a simple proposal. It does not pretend to transform people's lives completely, but we know that it will make a difference. We all know that George Osborne and the UK Tory Government chose to change their uprating from RPI to CPI. It was done with the active intention of cutting the costs of benefits, and that would have a direct impact on carers. We know that. That is why they did it, and that is why many were thought that this Government would resist continuing that kind of uprating. I have to say that I am not easily shocked or taken aback by what is said in this place, but I have to say that I never thought that I would see the day when a Scottish Government minister would pray in aid the Bank of England in justifying an uprating approach that directly has consequences for unpaid carers in our communities. What the Government minister has chosen, she has chosen to settle for a process, a process argument in the face of an issue of principle. The reality is that a party that claimed to be able to set up a new state in 18 months now has put this issue in it, it is too difficult, it is too difficult, it is too expensive box. It has returned £6 million of our money to the DWP with a contract that prevents those very powers being able to be varied to do things differently here. I wonder what equality impact assessment was made on that contract, which is now preventing the Scottish Government making choices that would live up to their claims for carers in the past. As I said at the beginning, warm words are not enough. We are not pretending that this proposal will change everything, but we are asking the Scottish Government to live up to its own language. Do not hide behind a process that is utterly inconsistent when rail fares can go up by RPI but carers allowance cannot, when the Scottish welfare budget is not even uprated by CPI. I would urge the Government to understand that it is a very simple decision and it will have an impact on the broader social security system in its country for a long time to come. I do not think that there is empty in the chamber that would argue against the point that carers are an invaluable part of our society. If we did not count on carers, then lots of people would be costing us a lot more money in institutions and in other places in hospitals and how they are looked after now. As Fulton McGregor says earlier on, this is something that happens all the time. Many of us will have been brought up looking after somebody and not realising that we are carers because they were part of our family, so nobody here is trying to play down the importance of carers and nobody here is trying to do anything but make sure that carers get the best deal possible. However, I am listening to the Labour Party here and I am listening to them coming in two or three weeks late instead of coming in and running up to the budget and saying, this is the importance that we are putting carers, this is the amount of money that we are going to put in carers and this is where we are going to get that money from. It appears to me that the reason why they did not do that is that they can now spend the next two years saying that they should be doing this and not having to justify it by cost. It is like SNP plus a pound and I think that that is disgraceful. What we are doing here is we are trying to look after people— Ms Lamont, it is quite clear that Mr Dornan is not taking your intervention. Please come in. It is here half a minute. It is quite clear that we have children who have got up in the morning who have to look after people in their house, then get to school, then get to education and we have got a responsibility to do everything that we can for them. We are trying to do our best. This Government has done more than any other Government in Scotland has ever done to raise the profile and to look after carers in such a way. What we should be doing is we should be looking to get a wider consensus around how we can make life as easy as possible and it is not by raising it from CPI to RPI and RPI is not a stable measure. I suspect that what you would be doing is, if RPI had been lost and CPI had been highest, this debate by Mark Griffin would have been that CPI should be at a better level. What should be happening here is that we need to look to see how we can look after carers in a completely holistic way and not be fighting about a pound or two—a couple of hundred pounds over the course of a year. If it is that—please do not give me this—a couple of hundred pounds a year means to be poor, because I have been poor, but what I also want to say is that you are much better at getting the problem resolved and then getting a long-term solution to it than you are just now. Yes, I will take it. I agree with the point that it makes. That is about a wider issue. That is not just about carers. That is the first up-rating measure that we are talking about. We are talking about a precedent here of CPI when it comes to the full range of devolved benefits, and we do not want to see all those people—not just a couple of pounds as he talks about for carers—but the full range of people who will depend on social security in Scotland. That does not set a precedent for that. James Dornan, you have less than a minute. CPI is a more sensible measure to be used because it is a more stable measure to be used. RPI is much more volatile, and almost all the experts are saying that. I had to laugh at Joanne Lamont saying that I cannot believe that she used the Bank of England when she spent two years standing up with others defending what the Bank of England was saying when she was trying to make sure that we did not get to run our own welfare affairs and social security affairs. I think that it is important that we look at this Parliament. Alex Cole-Hamilton's contribution was superb. I hit the nail in the head. That is what we should be doing. I hope that that gets scrubbed from the record. He hit all the right notes, because that is what should be about. It should be a holistic approach. It should be looking to see how, in the round, we can make life better for carers and not be scrambling over a pounder to a CPI or RPI. That would appear to be a debate about the means rather than the ends. I hope that, when we can move past that, we can focus on the ends, and that is about doing our best for carers. By choosing to discuss the methodology of upgrading, I believe that Labour has wasted a bit of an opportunity to debate the needs of carers and how we might broaden it and improve their opportunities by broadening our thinking. Becoming a carer is rarely a planned life choice. For the majority of people, it is the result of life circumstances. I personally have the utmost respect for the men, women and children who care for their loved ones so selflessly and often to the detriment of their own lives. In my experience, they do so with little complaint and often very little help. It is therefore right that, as a Parliament and as a society, we seek to support carers because, without them, both government and society would struggle. That is why we supported and welcomed the introduction of the carers allowance supplement, a living breathing example of devolution in action, bringing benefit to the people of Scotland. We believe that the Scottish ministers should be using the raft of powers that devolved to the Parliament to further explore ways to ensure carers receive a proper entitlement. On that, Mr Griffin and I agree. I might therefore reasonably have expected Mr Griffin to be questioning the delay in devolving carers allowance, or asking why the free bus pass for young carers will not be delivered until 2021. However, what I probably did not expect is that they would focus on the carers allowance supplement being linked to RPI rather than to CPI, because there is a body of evidence that says, to the contrary, that the Scottish Government, the UK Government and the O&S have all dismissed RPI as unfit for purpose. Indeed, the O&S went on to say that it is not suitable for use. While the Scottish Government has echoed the view that the formula is a very poor measure of inflation, I will take that. Elaine Smith I thank the member for taking the intervention, but, obviously, the House of Lords economic committee has just said the opposite. They have said that RPI could be used as the one measure, and there are Conservative members on that committee. Is Michelle Ballantyne disagreeing with them? Michelle Ballantyne? No. If you look at our amendment, what we are saying is that those things should be explored. The point here about what the committee said was that it could, but it would need to be changed in order to be fit for purpose. It is the present system that is not fit for purpose. If you look at what RPI does, including mortgages and housing, it subjects it to the volatility of the housing market. In 2008, when your Government went out, people would have suffered under RPI because you would crash the market. We want a more stable measure that guarantees people's futures. It is right that we look at it and we keep it under review, but it is not right that we just change it without thought. My challenge to you as Labour benches is that upgrading should be considered in an evidence-based manner, not just run at as a knee-jerk reaction. We know that it was discussed during the Social Security Bill and we rejected it then. We know that you are bringing it back again for a second bite. I think that we are giving you the same answer. While SPICE may have produced an eye-catching number, I think that you need to go back and look at it in more depth and bring it as a more robust proposal. We need to know exactly what the costs are and on what basis we reject the current evidence. We need to look at how the addition would impact the amount that is paid to the DWP under split competence if you want it done soon. We also need to look at things such as how it would affect recipients' income tax, a question that Mr Griffin himself has raised in the past. While I agree with your aims, I think that it needs a lot more work. That is why we are saying that it needs to be reviewed and it needs to be kept under review. We support where the Government is at the moment and we think that they have done the right thing, but that is not to say that we do not keep looking at it. The last of the open debate contributions is from Bob Doris. Thank you very much. As others have done, I start by paying tribute to carers. Certainly from my own experience, it is worth putting on record that quite often carers themselves can be vulnerable individuals quite often. There are co-dependence relationships in terms of health needs and disabilities. Carers are not always the best of health themselves, so they are a varied picture out there. I know from personal experience that they are the absolute essential jobs that carers do. I welcome the debate on the 15 per cent of the power over benefits that does sit in this place. I look forward to the day when the other 85 per cent is also returned to this place. However, the Scottish Government has made good progress with those 15 per cent of powers. We have introduced the best start grant going far further than the UK Government has previously done in relation to that and a similar vein in relation to funeral assistance and support there. It would appear to folk watching that we are arguing about whether to use CPI at 2.4 per cent to upgrade carers allowance and supplement, or the higher figure currently, as of this year, of RPI. However, I think that that would be a wrong way to look at it. If you want to look at a number, the number that you have to look at is the 13 per cent increase that the Scottish Government has given to carers with the carers supplement, an additional £37 million. After tomorrow, I hope that that will be £452.40 to every carer across the country additional. That is not 2.2 per cent or 3 per cent. That is 13 per cent. Labour should not muddy the waters over that during today's debate. Crucially, the Scottish Government has confirmed that in different years CPI was higher than RPI, in other years RPI was higher than CPI. I would like to turn the debate on its head a little bit. I think that Mark Griffin was helpful when he said that £3 million would be the price tag in relation to that. He would like some more information in relation to that. I commend Mark Griffin only because of his time constraints. I apologise. I commend Mark Griffin for suggesting £3 million more for carers, because that is essentially what Mr Griffin is doing. I hope that that has been part of a credible budget dialogue with the Scottish Government just a few weeks ago. That might have been secured. That would seem a fairly reasonable request, but I would point out that more cash for carers means less cash for somebody else. You have to have that discussion in the round. That leads us to discussion on why Labour did not suggest that as part of its budget process. I will return to that later. It also leads us to that discussion about how, if you had £3 million more to spend for carers, how would you spend it? I chair the social security committee in this Parliament, and Mark Griffin is a very valued member of that committee. We have looked at the young carers grant and had a round table with young carers in relation to that. We have looked at the possibility of awarding more money to a second young carer. We have looked at lifting the age limit. We have looked at young carers in full time education. We have looked at the wider package of respite carers. We have looked at unpaid and unidentified carers. The reason I raised that is that to do more on that would cost money. Alex Cole-Hamilton made that point about looking at the package for carers in the round. If the discussion that Labour wants to have is, let's find from somewhere £3 million additional for carers, let's have that dialogue, happy to have it on the social security committee as well. What I feel is what we are getting here today is not a considered plan from Labour, not a strategic plan from Labour, but political opposition and posturing for their own narrow benefit here this afternoon, and that disappoints me. However, I get it, that is politics, Labour. I do not like it, but that is politics, Labour, and we are politicians in this place. Despite that, what I commit to do on the social security committee is to continue that constructive and vibrant and progressive debate about how we best support all carers as part of that wider package. I will do that without any party politics whatsoever. I move to the closing speeches. I call Brian Whittle for up to four minutes, please. I welcome the chance to close this debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. It gives us the opportunity across the chamber once again to recognise the value of carers, both in the work that they do and providing the care to family and friends, and recognises that we need to continue that consideration of how we deliver an effective package of support to them. Although it seems rather crass to mention the monetary value of the work that they do to the economy, it is an important statistic to keep in mind. Although money is not the reason they find themselves in a caring role, Miles Briggs highlighted the fact that it is worth some £10 billion to the Scottish economy. Also, like Miles Briggs, I have attended the young carers conference weekend. It is rather enlightening and it gives us the opportunity to hear directly from young carers themselves. It gives us the chance to sit around the table for them to ask us questions and put their points to us and boy do they. I find that particularly refreshing and enjoyable. I think that one story sticks in my mind, Deputy Presiding Officer. It was around a young carer who has to go and pick up prescription for the parent that she is looking after. She has to get on the bus, she has to go into town and then get the return trip back and that costs her £5. That is the reality of the life of that carer. It is time out of her day, but it is also time and money out of her pocket. I think that that is why the introduction of that free bus travel in 2021 is so particularly important. I want to mention a couple of contributions in the short time. A number of contributors across the room, Alison Johnstone, Miles Briggs and Alice Cole-Hamilton, noted the fact that there are situations in which carers do not recognise that they are in a caring role. That is an incredibly important point, so we need to establish a better way of identification and make sure that we get the support to them. I also wanted to pick up on Bob Doris's point in saying to just gently highlight to him that you do have a third of working-age benefits available to you. Stop hiding behind the 15 per cent, because you are not counting pensions in that, of course. I have to say that, given the individual's predicament of waspy women, would you then celebrate pensions that have been brought back to this Parliament under the democratic control of the Scottish Parliament, rather than the cuts to pensions that the Tories are doing at Westminster? Brian Whittle You have the ability now. You have had the ability now for three years. You were given a third of the working-age benefits, and the first thing that you did was give them back to Westminster, and then you have put them back for another two years. You have the ability. Guess what? You found out that welfare is difficult. Mr Whittle, can I remind you that you should always direct your conversations through the chair, please? Mr Whittle, I am serious. I am sorry to not speak directly to each other, particularly in interventions. I apologise. Brian Whittle Given the consensus across the chamber and the need to look at how we increase support for carers, like Michelle Ballantyne said, I am left with the feeling that this is an opportunity missed. I think that there is a certain lack of ambition, quite frankly, in the Labour motion. The approach to me is without any real creative thought. While we are looking at ways to put more money into the pockets and recompense the work that it does, we should also be looking at other avenues that are available to us, because it is not just about the money that goes into the pockets, it is also about how much things cost. I would like to see the possibility of concessionary travel expanding out into all carers, perhaps even written into the contract as part of a tender process. That ability to keep them connected, as has been highlighted to me by many carers, is also possible perhaps to get access to public facilities, allowing them to keep active. There are many, Presiding Officer, much more we could say. Unfortunately, it is a very short debate, so I shall leave my contribution there. Kate Forbes, up to four minutes, please, minister. Thank you. I start by agreeing with many other speakers in paying tribute to carers. I do so seeing first hand the hard work, the sacrificial care and the challenging environment that many of them work in. That is why the Labour Party has said that actions speak louder than warm, empty words. That is why this Government has put more money into the pockets of carers, why this Government has introduced a new benefit for young carers and why this Government has committed to supporting the rights of carers. That is also why the Labour Party do carers a disservice in this debate by making it about inflationary indexes. I thought that we had seen enough of the Labour Party's financial illiteracy over the course of the last few weeks, but less than a week after stage 3 of the budget, it is aback. For clarity, inflation is the cost of living. The process of operating is to ensure that social security payments keep up with the cost of living. For the Labour Party to suggest we adopt what is widely deemed to be a more inaccurate measure of inflation, simply because it is anticipated to overestimate price rises, is not just wrong, but it is unfair. Is the Labour Party aware? Is Mark Griffin aware that in previous years our plan has seen higher than CPI and that the whole point of inflationary indexes is that it can change? There is a place for debate about the appropriate level of payments. Let's have that debate, and I will take an intervention from whoever stands up fastest. I think that it was Mark Griffin. I thank the minister for giving way. Perhaps he can explain why hard-pressed train commuters are forced to live with RPI increases to fares, while carers won't get a similar uplift in their carers allowance. It's a fair question, and the reason is that train fares are increased by RPI because it's a historical use. In 2013, there was a review of UK price indices, and the review's recommendation stated quite clearly that RPI was a flawed statistical measure of inflation that should not be used for new purposes and that Government regulators should work towards ending the use of RPI as soon as is practicable. The clear point here—it needs to be recognised, these are not my words, these are experts—RPI is more erratic. The whole point here is let's have a debate about how much carers should be paid, but to link it to indices and inflationary indices is counterproductive and flawed. The debate about payments to carers is completely and utterly different from the debate on inflationary uprating, which is a reflection of the cost of living. We need to recognise those costs, and therefore it needs to be evidence-led. That is the important thing in the debate. We value carers, and we are doing everything that we can to support carers, but we will not jeopardise that support by using a flawed and counterproductive approach. To close, one of the interventions that I made earlier, the Scottish Parliament has carefully and considered and scrutinised the Scottish budget over the past three months, including a wide range of committee evidence, sessions and debates in this chamber. That process resulted in the approval last Thursday of £42.5 billion budget supporting the use of our new devolved social security responsibility powers. During the stage 3 budget debate on Thursday, the Labour Party demanded additional money to be allocated to a whole range of commitments, as is their right, including local government, child poverty and so on. There was no clarity on how any of those commitments would be funded. Pauline McNeill, who I believe is going to close, mentioned that she welcomed the carers allowance supplement. Why has that changed in less than a week? Thank you very much. I call on Pauline McNeill to close for Labour. Ms McNeill, five minutes please. All members have recorded our deepest thanks in respect to the millions of carers across the country and 29,000 young carers under 16. One in five people give up work to care for people. It is an act of huge selflessness and an act of love. We welcome the support of the gains to our motion today and we hope to persuade perhaps the Liberal Democrats that this is the right thing to do. We know that carers come from a wide diverse range of backgrounds. If you are in full-time education such as colleges, university, you are not eligible to receive carers allowance, even though you are unlikely to be able to hold down part-time work due to caring, but you have additional financial stresses. We have the power to act, and this is the forthcoming debate that we should have of where we should use our powers to elaborate on the carers allowance and the carers supplement. Let me begin to answer Kate Forbes by pointing out, in case she is unclear, that what Labour is arguing for today is a question of principle in our view. Uprating of the carers allowance going forward is about the mechanism that we choose to have confidence in—and members on this side of the House believe—that the RPI best reflects the cost of living. It is not just those members who have confidence that the carers groups themselves have the most confidence in RPI. It is a critical point going forward. There is a statutory instrument coming forward to the committee tomorrow. The Government has the choice of relaying it if they so wish. We will welcome the devolution of the carers allowance and we do welcome the carers supplement. Let me address some points in detail. The Labour motion calls for RPI to be used as the uprating mechanism, because we believe that that is the most beneficial way of uprating for members. Far from being a trivial matter of a few hundred pounds that Mr Dornan referred to earlier, our figures show that, since 2010, that is a figure of nearly £1,000. Apparently, there are historical reasons why RPI was used for train fares due to the Scottish Government not believe their own position. It is a new agency. We set new precedents. We are asking you to set a new precedent. The cabinet secretary painstakingly tried to justify the adoption of CPI quoting statisticians and opinions shared by some organisations. What further evidence does this Scottish Government need? The CPI was adopted by George Osborne in 2010, a man who is widely distrusted by you, cabinet secretary and minister, and you have quoted it in many debates. Do you want evidence? There is the beginning of my evidence. The carers increase should cover actual inflation costs, and we believe that this is the mechanism that does it. I take the intervention. Do you support or do you, George Osborne? Before you say anything, the term you is used by the chair, not by members. My colleague has just told you about it. We will not give up on that. Minister. I want to support carers to ensure that they have enough and sufficient money to meet the cost of living. To do that, we need to make sure that the index that we use is evidence-led. The UK Statistics Authority, the Office of National Statistics, the Bank of England, and I could go on if we had more time. All claim that RPI is flawed, should we really be using a flawed system to support our carers? I do not have confidence in this mechanism. Earlier on, the minister asked why Labour did not ask for this in the budget. Why do you need to be asked not to use the CPI as the mechanism adopted by George Osborne? Alex Cole-Hamilton seemed to be almost persuadable on this. I do not know. I am sure that you are not flattered by Mr Dornan's earlier praise of your speech. I would ask the Liberal Democrats to look at the—I think that I have only got a minute left, actually. Yes, they are afraid that the member is concluding in a short debate. I would have taken it otherwise. Alex Cole-Hamilton, I would ask the Liberal Democrats to consider that there is evidence to show that, because the CPI was adopted in 2010, there have been substantial losses in that period of time. I hope that the Liberal Democrats would consider that this small difference overall—I do apologise to the members—there is a very short debate. We believe in what we are doing here. We believe that it is a matter of principle that it is more work to be done. We have welcomed the Scottish Government's work on this. You have a chance to reverse this and do the right thing. Thank you, and that concludes that debate. I want members to very quickly get down and take the positions for the next debate with very little time in hand.