 The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Carers Allowance Supplement Scotland Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the marshaled list and the groupings of amendments. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division of the afternoon. The period of voting for each division will be up to one minute. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request to speak buttons as soon as possible after I call the group. Members should now refer to the marshaled list of amendments. There are two groupings of amendments. Group 1 is increased amount of carers allowance supplement and I call amendment 6 in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, grouped with amendments 3 and 7. Pam Duncan-Glancy to move amendment 6 and speak to all amendments in the group. Many people told us in the social security committee that the low level of carers benefits was not sufficient to lift carers out of poverty. The Government has said that it could be some time before they consider increasing the adequacy of carers benefits. The amendments in this section attempt to help carers and provide them security until that time. I thank Maggie Chapman for lodging the first of these amendments 6 at stage 2, which she sadly withdrew at that time, noting that it was a probing amendment. I thought then and I still do now that it was the right thing to do, that it was the right thing to do then, and that is why I move the amendment in my name today. It would mean that carers allowance assistance supplement would be calculated on the basis of universal credit and not jobseekers allowance, and it would fix that rate of universal credit at precut levels. Carers allowance supplement was brought in to recognise that carers do not have enough money to live on. It was doubled because of the extensive work of carers during the pandemic. The pandemic is not over. The Government spent last week arguing eloquently with us and our colleagues across the UK that the precut level of universal credit is not enough for anyone to live on. We should not accept less than that for carers either. With this amendment, we have an opportunity to use the powers of this Parliament and put money in carers pockets by increasing the uplift to carers supplement, bringing it in line with precut universal credit rates, and so I urge the chamber to vote for amendment 6 in my name. Jeremy Balfour's amendment in this group, amendment 3, would allow the supplement to be paid every year at Christmas and until the carers assistance is developed. That goes further than the bill, as it currently stands, which only doubles the supplement this December. However, I believe that carers are not just for Christmas and that they should be supported 52 weeks of the year, and so I have lodged another amendment, amendment 7, which will guarantee the uplift for carers stays in place until the new carers assistance is finally introduced by the Government. In evidence to the Social Security Committee, Engender said that any additional payments have been ad hoc and offer little certainty to individuals failing to be an adequate response to the recipient's well evidence needs. That is in spite of 21 per cent of carers reporting spending more as a result of Covid-19. Leaving the uplift at the discretion of regulation leaves far too much uncertainty for carers, uncertainty at one of the most difficult times of their lives. We have a chance to make a hard time a bit better. We should take that chance, and I urge members to vote for those amendments. Jeremy Balfour, to speak to amendment 3 and other amendments in the group. I start this afternoon's proceedings on this area by first of all thanking all carers for what we have done, not only in the last 20 months, but for what we are doing day out, often unseen, definitely unpaid and often without it, society would be in a much less place. We have heard from all five parties over the last number of months warm words thanking carers for what they do, and those are right. I know as someone who benefits from an unpaid carer on a daily basis how important those individuals are, but words do not put food on the table. Words do not give heating bills to be paid, and we can be as nice with our words, but unless words are followed by actions, then this Government is simply throwing stones in grass hoses. I thank Jeremy Balfour for giving way. Will he not accept that this is a Government that is backing up the words with action by doubling the supplement in December, which is taking support for carers way beyond the levels that are enjoyed by carers elsewhere in the United Kingdom? Will he not call on his colleagues in the United Kingdom Government to provide additional support for carers allowance so that this supplement could go further? It is very strange place we are in at the moment that the side of the Parliament seems to want to spend 90 per cent of its time talking about powers that are reserved and never want to talk about powers that we have in this place. I would perhaps suggest that some of the individuals that keep jumping up might want to see collection to the next Westminster Government and leave this place because we do not seem to be interested in using the powers that we have here in Scotland. I particularly remember that he is now in the Scottish Parliament and did leave Westminster just to remind him where he is meant to be. In committee, we had a good debate at stage 2. Marie McNair added the comment that we do not want an ad hoc system. That is what I totally agree with her. We do not want an ad hoc system. We do not want a system that is reliant on Government ministers making a decision when they feel they can. What we want to give to carers is certainty. You have two choices this afternoon in regard to that certainty. You can give that certainty in regard to doing it once a year with my amendment or you can do it twice a year if you support the amendment already moved. That is a choice that this Parliament will have to make in the next few moments. It is a financial choice. It is a financial choice that we are told by this Government has to be taken seriously. It is as Mr McPherson made very clear in the debate last week in Universal Credit that it is a political choice. It is a choice that you can either vote for it or you can say one word by not giving anybody any extra money. It is a political choice that you will have to make in the next few moments. There is no shortage of money. According to our minister, Lorna Slater, on a tweet just a few days ago, she said that there is no shortage of money. The money is there to decide how you spend that money. That is a choice that we have to make. What we have to do is give that certainty to carers that they will know until 2025 that they will either get this payment doubled twice or once a year. That is a political choice. That is a decision that we will have to make in the next few moments. I hope that people will support my amendment. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It is my pleasure to speak, albeit briefly in this stage of the debate, to complete the bill's journey from the scrutiny that was started by the Social Justice and Social Security Committee, which I chaired only a few short weeks ago. The amendments that we are considering in this group from Pam Duncan Glancy and Jeremy Balfour that I am speaking to amendments 6, 3 and 7 have already been considered by a committee and were rejected by the committee at stage 2. We heard substantial evidence from carers and from organisations representing carers about how welcome this bill is and how welcome this second double payment will be in December. I want to take this opportunity, like Jeremy Balfour, to put on record again my thanks to all those who engaged with our evidence sessions, but also my thanks to carers across Scotland for the work that they do. There is no doubt that we need to continue to invest in supporting our carers. We heard at times very challenging testimony about the challenges that unpaid carers face and how those challenges have been exacerbated by the pandemic. That is why it is right that the Scottish Government with this bill is taking support for eligible carers way beyond what is available elsewhere in the UK. I do not oppose the principle of continuing to pay additional supplements next year or until the new Scottish carers assistance benefit is established if that is what is required. Our carers deserve it. However, I think that it is really important that, as the current devolved hybrid settlement means that the Scottish Government has to operate within a fixed budget and without the borrowing powers enjoyed by normal parliaments delivering social security, that commitments to make new payments are properly costed and taken through the formal budget process. As we heard in evidence to the committee from the Scottish Fiscal Commission this morning, I give way to Pam Duncan-Glancy. Thank you to my colleague on the Social Security Committee for taking the intervention. Do not you agree that the financial stability of carers who are having to make decisions about whether to eat or heat every day as a result of their poverty is also something that we have to consider? When the committee voted against this amendment—I am pleased to hear that you think that, in principle, it is good to give this certainty—it was called reckless by the Government at the time. I do not think that it is reckless at all to put more money in carers pockets, so I hope that the member will recognise that and recognise that there is a significantly bigger availability of resources to Government to support them to budget into longer term than there are for households who are struggling to make ends meet. Pam Duncan-Glancy, for that intervention, I absolutely take the point that she is making around providing certainty. However, I do note that the Scottish Government is providing a pretty well-established level of certainty in terms of providing this December payment as a double payment, doing so in time to ensure that carers have it in their pockets for December, for the crucial Christmas period, which was warmly welcomed by carers and their representatives who gave evidence to the committee. The difficulty that we face, as I have already outlined, is that the Government has to operate within a fixed budget, and to be able to allocate the resource means that it has to go through the appropriate budgetary channels to ensure that that is done in a sustainable way. That is why I think that it is important that, if Labour—and that is the point that I was going to come to—well, I do not doubt the commitment of Jeremy Balfour or Pam Duncan-Glancy to see payments to carers rise further, I have no doubt that they will engage with Kate Forbes and Sean Robison over the coming months, just as they will on other areas of spending, to ensure that there is a fully-costed way to ensure that that can happen in the future. Of course, I will give way before I conclude. I am grateful that we do not agree that it is good to give unpaid carers certainty beyond just this one year. Will he recognise that a lot of the benefits that are now devolved to Scotland will have to be paid on an on-going basis? Why should this benefit be different from any other benefit that has now been devolved? My point is exactly that. That is no different from any other benefit. It has to go through the normal budgetary processes to ensure that it is sustainable over the financial period that we are talking about. I think that that is absolutely right, but I do have to say that, in the same week that we see a cut to universal credit impacting the same carers that we are talking about today, it is some cheek for the Conservatives to ask the Scottish Government to do even more to make up for that cut. While I support the idea of looking at ways of providing further support to carers, I do not agree with this bill to do it as it is primarily about ensuring that December payment can be doubled and we will be voting against amendments in this group if they are pressed. The Government shares the sentiment that members have expressed of the gratitude, respect for and recognition of carers all across Scotland. It is from that sentiment and the place that we have brought forward the bill to support carers and to provide the additional support that we intend to do if the bill is passed in the months ahead for the festive period. That is why we have brought the bill forward in an expedited process. However, we must look to support carers and this Government does want to support carers more beyond that. Of course we do, but we must do that in a way that is both proper and responsible. Presiding Officer, we have secured resource for a doubling of the December carers allowance supplement, which is why we prioritise bringing the bill forward. This is the first programme bill to get to stage 3 in this parliamentary term to focus on ensuring—sorry, I should have said—this is the first programme bill—of course we had emergency legislation just a few months ago—to get to stage 3 in this parliamentary term. We did that to focus on ensuring that we get this double payment to carers in good time in December. As the discussions on the bill to date have emphasised, including this afternoon, we have political choices to make and financial choices to make too. Jeremy Balfour cited the debate that we had on 28 September and I just asked him to recall the statement that he made. He stated, and I quote, the reality is that effective governance requires more than empty promises to shake the magic money tree and pay for anything and everything without consequences. If that is true of a UK Government with the full fiscal and monetary powers that he defended last week, then it is certainly true for a devolved Government with limited powers. We do have financial choices to make. As I said at stage 2 when we debated for the first time those amendments, the Government chooses to mitigate the low value of carers allowance through the carers allowance supplement to the cost of over £40 million every year. We have done that since 2018. With the additional payment, if we pass the bill today, that will add another £20 million of support this year. We also choose to mitigate the bedroom tax, a cost of £70 million a year. We choose to introduce the Scottish child payment and bridging payments to support thousands of children, decisions and choices that will put £130 million into the pockets of families in this financial year. We choose to give everyone in receipt of council tax reduction £130 to support them through the pandemic a payment that is rolling out to 400,000 people this month. Yes, I will take an intervention from Jackie Baillie. I know that the Minister was not here at the time, but would he accept that it took the Scottish Government a year to mitigate the bedroom tax because they chose not to, and I quote, let Westminster off the hook? They were quite happy to keep the people of Scotland on the hook. I am not clear if that is an accurate quote from Ms Baillie. However, what happened, and I recall it as a citizen of Scotland, was that the Scottish National Party Government took action to mitigate that very poor choice from a Westminster Government, but would it not be better if those decisions were not put our way? We have political and financial choices that this Government makes every year within its fixed budget and limited powers. We have to be prudent and responsible. I will take another intervention from Ms Baillie. Thank you very much. It is the case that we no longer have a fixed budget. You can raise taxes. You do raise taxes. Surely you should correct the narrative? That is what I said. I will correct myself and say that I am largely fixed budget with limited powers. However, Jackie Baillie is somebody who sat on the Smith commission and knows the fiscal framework very well. I apologise. I retract that statement. I apologise for that inaccuracy. What I was going on to say was that somebody of Jackie Baillie's experience and knowledge of the fiscal framework will appreciate the relationship between our income tax powers and the block grant and the weakness in the income tax powers of the fact that we do not have powers over dividend income tax and the fact that we have limited taxation powers. I am sure that she will acknowledge that as a factual statement. I think that it is important to emphasise the point that we have to be responsible and not be reckless. That is why it is important to knowledge that, at this point, the Parliament has already agreed a budget that makes no provision for the further increase that is in some of the amendment to apply from this December as proposed by amendment 6. That is an important point. I am going to make some progress. That is all important with regard to context. The Government chose to pay an additional supplement last year, and it is important to recognise that. It was elected on a manifesto that promised to pay again this year an additional carers allowance supplement of more than £230. A choice that we may be able to make again in the future, we will be able to make it again in the future, depending on budget and what else we do with Scottish carers assistance as it develops into a new replacement benefit for care. We are taking the power if the bill is passed in order to be able to pay an additional supplement in the future if that is the will of Parliament through the budget process and considering taxation choices that have been emphasised by others and the wider budget questions in the round. Will you agree with me that the decision around the amendment in my name has nothing to do with this year's budget but with future budgets? Secondly, does not all social security have to go through this process? We have benefits that will be paid for the next number of years, which is another response to the Scottish Government. Why is this benefit different from any other benefit? I use to say that PIP is in doubt, attendants are in doubt, these are part of the negotiations that you have with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance every year. Why can this not be written in, like all those other benefits are written in? I refer Jeremy Balfour to my point earlier, which was a specific point in terms of this year's budget with regard to amendment 6, and I was very clear on that. With regard to how we go about decision making in the round, there is an important engagement here in terms of considerations around the fact that we already pay 13 per cent more through the carers allowance supplement, which was the first benefit that we introduced in 2018. Considerations around whether we do an additional payment in future years need to be considered in the round with the development of Scottish Carers Assistance, where we are looking at options for the longer term, which will increase our support for carers through our Scottish social security system. We will begin our consultation in the period ahead on proposals for the delivery of Scottish Carers Assistance, and that will require for us to carefully consider the balance to be struck between extending eligibility to Scottish Carers Assistance and increasing the amount of Scottish Carers Assistance. I look forward to engaging with colleagues and stakeholders more widely on those important points in due course. As I said in the stage 1 debate and again to the Social Justice and Social Security Committee at stage 2, future increases will and should be considered in the context of the circumstances that are faced by carers and the financial constraints that we face as a devolved Government. If we were to commit further resource now for the future and for future years, we could not potentially utilise that resource to support carers in other ways. That is why I cannot support those amendments at this time, and I urge members to either not press their amendments, or if those amendments are pressed 6, 3 and 7, I urge Parliament to reject them. I call Pam Duncan-Glancy to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 6. Let me deal with just some of the points that we have heard so far. First of all, I agree with the minister. That is a political and a financial choice. What I am asking this Parliament to do is to make the political and financial choice to put more money in the pockets of unpaid carers across Scotland. More money again. We heard consistently in the short timescale that we had to consult on this bill. I will. I appreciate the position that Pam Duncan-Glancy is advancing, but will she acknowledge that we are already intending to pay an additional payment with this legislation before us today? Yes, I do. As you will be aware, we think that the bill and the additional payment are necessary and essential because carers are already living in poverty. We are asking the Government to go beyond words of support and suggestions that support the idea that people might just get money in their pockets and put money in people's pockets, doubling it continually until you have looked at the carers allowance in the round, because people are living in far too much poverty. We have also heard a lot about the Scottish Government budget. There are 44 billion quid here, with 21,000 civil servants at their disposal to determine how they might want to use this budget. I urge the Government to contrast that with what you are asking households who are living with disabled people in them and unpaid carers in them, who are getting less than £80 a week in some cases to balance their budget and only have the people in that household to help them to do it. I ask you to consider providing that certainty. It is not fair to leave it to discretion and leave it wondering how it will cope next year. A third of carers have said that they are struggling to pay utility bills. 47 per cent of them have been in debt and half are struggling to make ends meet. In the last year, they have told us that they are undervalued, feel invisible, exhausted and broken. They have worked 24-7 with no break. 78 per cent of them said that, overall, the financial situation has got worse as a result of the pandemic. Uplifting the carers allowance supplement and doubling it at this point is the right thing to do, but the pandemic is not over. It will be the right thing to do for a considerable number of months and possibly years into the future. Until you address the grossly under-resourced funding for carers' benefits right now, please consider supporting the amendment and providing that certainty to carers across Scotland. Ms Duncan-Glancy, for clarity, are you pressing or withdrawing amendment 6? Forgive me, Presiding Officer, I'm pressing amendment 6. The question is that amendment 6 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. Therefore, there will be a five-minute suspension for the first division of the afternoon.