 The question is that amendment 6 be agreed to. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is now closed. Point of order, Ben Macpherson. I apologise, Presiding Officer. I'm having some difficulties with my connection. I would have voted no. Thank you, Mr Macpherson. We'll ensure that's recorded. The result of the vote on amendment 6, in the name of Pam Duncan Glancy, is yes, 24, no, 93. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. We now move to group 2 reviews. I call amendment 1, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, grouped with amendments 2, 4 and 5. Jeremy Balfour to move amendment 1 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I don't want to take credit for these amendments. In fact, Maggie Chapman brought me forward at stage 2 of the committee. I think that, very helpfully, I was able to show how we could improve the bill slightly better. I want to thank her for bringing me forward and was disappointed that she didn't move them at stage 2. Hopefully, having debated it this afternoon, the Government will take these on board and we can move forward together. At stage 2 debate, I was slightly unclear why the Scottish Government wasn't willing to accept those four amendments. I was unclear what the minister was saying against them. In one part of the debate, he was saying that it would take several servants away from doing other jobs to be able to do this work. Later on, in stage 2, he said that the work that was already being done would just take longer to publish it and scrutinise it. I wonder if the minister could clarify for me why the amendment cannot be accepted. I feel the reason is that the Government simply does not want the Parliament to be involved in any of the process. It is running away again from the scrutiny of this Parliament. It wants to keep all the power within the Government. It wants to make all the decisions and just get the backbenters to rubber stamp it at the appropriate time. I think that that is disappointing in regard to the open, transparent so-called Government that I would like to call themselves. All that we are asking for is the work that has already been done to be simply published so that the Parliament can see that report. If it is appropriate for the committee or the whole chamber to debate that, to see how we are getting on, to see what progress has been made and I generally cannot see what the Government has to fear in regard to that amendment. The second amendment in regard to carers. Again, Maggie Chapman has brought forward one of the key issues that is happening in our society today. People who care for more than one person are penalised on this. Again, we are not asking for any financial money up front now. All that we are asking in regard to this amendment is that the Scottish Government carry out a review and report back to Parliament. At that point, Parliament can make a decision. Perhaps the minister can tell me why she is not willing to carry out the review and why she is not willing for Parliament to be involved in seeing a report and then coming to a review. That is all that that amendment is asking for and it seems absolutely reasonable to me. I hope that the chamber will accept the amendments in my name. As Jeremy Balfour has stated at stage 2, those amendments were withdrawn by Maggie Chapman who first tabled them, then discussed and rejected by members who chose to press them nonetheless. I have since written to members of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee with further information on the on-going work to review carer benefits, particularly carers allowance supplement and the young carer grant. In my letter, I set out that a wide range of data and methodologies are used in developing and evaluating our social security policies, including quantitative survey data, benefit statistics, input from users, including through our experience panels, existing research by other organisations and commissioned research. Both carer benefits analysis and the wider research on carers and the caring experience are considered in the evaluation of our carer benefits. That work, combined with the client insights work of Social Security Scotland, provides a rich stream of evidence to help us to build a social security system that works for all of Scotland's communities. The Scottish Government has recently published evaluations of both the carers allowance supplement and the young carer grant that are available for this Parliament to consider. Those show that the supplement has gone some way to meeting its overall aims to improve outcomes for carers by providing extra financial support to provide greater recognition of the essential societal contribution that carers make and that the majority of young carer grant recipients felt it helped to make a difference to their lives, gave them access to more opportunities and improved their mental wellbeing. We are currently progressing work to deliver Scottish carers assistance, including the additional payment for those with multiple caring roles. One of the key issues that we are seeking to address is the very limited data that is currently available to enable us to identify who would be eligible. As I noted at stage 2, I do not believe that the review and reporting obligations proposed by the amendments in this group are required. Further, if they were to be accepted, the amendments were to be accepted, then meeting those reporting requirements would require a reallocation of resources away from our work developing Scottish carers assistance. For those reasons, I believe that the amendments 1, 2, 4 and 5 are unnecessary and would be unhelpful. I therefore urge this Parliament to reject each of the amendments in this group. I call Jeremy Balfour. Mr Balfour, may I confirm that you moved amendment 1? I did. If I didn't, I'm happy to move it now. Thank you, minister. Again, I'm generally confused with the minister. He just said that this is going to take away resources, but the opening of two or three minutes of his speech was saying that here is all the work that has been done. Either the work has been done and can be reported to Parliament, or the work hasn't been done and he doesn't want us to know that. Could the minister like to intervene on me and tell me, had the work been done and if so, why can't it be published, or is it taking away resources from being able to do the work? Which is it? I'm happy to advise Mr Balfour, as I set out in my letter six of October, of all the work that's already on going to evaluate our benefits. Therefore, I think that his amendments would create unnecessary work taking away civil service time from the development of Scottish Care's assistance and are therefore superfluous, and I urge Parliament to reject them. Jeremy Balfour. The work has been done, but we don't want you to know about it. It's what the minister is saying today. The clear attitude of the Scottish Government is a secret government that doesn't want any scrutiny at all from the whole of Parliament, and that is what we're hearing today. Absolutely. Miles Briggs. Minister is saying, read the letter. It's one paragraph, basically, with an excuse in the middle of it. So when you're saying read the letter, it's not answering the questions which raised that committee. Specifically to quote you minister, it's saying one of the key issues that we're seeking to address is the limited data available. Where is the data that exists and you've done the work? Where is it, and why can't Parliament have that? Jeremy Balfour. I thank the member for his intervention, and he's an insightful usual way. I think I just put that spotlight right on where the Scottish Government do not want it to be, but work's been done, we don't want you to see it. What is even worse from that is the amendment that we are going to also vote against from what we hear is looking at reviewing, not financially supporting, reviewing what we can do to help someone who's caring for more than one person in the household. A review, and the Government is saying no to that. The message today from this chamber is that the SNP green coalition will give you warm words, but if you want change, if you want money, if you want to make a difference, don't support us. I move amendment in my name. Sorry, Mr Balfour. Can I ask if you wish to press amendment number 1 to vote? I do. Thank you. The question is that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. The Parliament is not agreed. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is now closed. Point of order, Ben Macpherson. Apologies, I'm having connection difficulties with that today. I would have voted no. Thank you, Mr Macpherson. We'll ensure that's recorded. Point of order, Craig Hoy. I would have voted yes. Thank you, Mr Hoy. We'll ensure that's recorded. Thank you, Mr Chowdry. We'll ensure that's recorded. Point of order, Eleanor Whitham. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm having connection problems, and I would have voted no. Thank you. Thank you, Ms Whitham. We'll ensure that's recorded. The result of the vote on amendment number 1 in the name of Jeremy Balfour is yes, 50, no, 67. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment number 2 in the name of Jeremy Balfour, already debated with amendment 1. Jeremy Balfour to move or not move. The question is that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. The Parliament is not agreed. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is now closed. Point of order, Oliver Mundell. Up to allow me to vote. I would have voted yes. Thank you, Mr Mundell. We'll ensure that's recorded. Point of order, Kenneth Gibson. Thank you, Mr Gibson. We'll ensure that's recorded. The result of the vote on amendment number 2. Thank you, colleagues. The result of the vote on amendment number 2 in the name of Jeremy Balfour is yes, 51. No, 66. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 3 in the name of Jeremy Balfour, already debated with amendment 6. Jeremy Balfour to move or not move. The question is that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. The Parliament is not agreed. Members should cast their votes now. If we happen to stop the party, we'll be fine. If we happen to stop the party, we'll be fine. If we happen to stop the party, we'll be fine. If we happen to stop the party, we'll be fine. If we happen to stop the party, we'll be fine. If we happen to stop the party, we'll be fine. If we happen to stop the party, we'll be fine. The vote is now closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 3 in the name of Jeremy Balfour is yes, 51. No, 66. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 7 in the name of Jeremy Balfour, I call amendment 7, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, already debated with amendment 6. Pam Duncan-Glancy, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 7 be agreed to, are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, members should cast their votes now. The vote is now closed. Point of order, Jackie Baillie. I'm afraid I lost my connection, but I would have voted yes. Thank you, Ms Baillie, we'll ensure that's recorded. The result of the vote on amendment 7, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, is yes, 51, no, 67. There were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 4, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, already debated with amendment 1. Jeremy Balfour, to move or not move. Not move. Thank you. I call amendment 5, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, already debated with amendment 1. Jeremy Balfour, to move or not move. Not move. Thank you. That ends consideration of amendments. At this point in the proceedings, I'm required understanding orders to decide whether or not, in my view, any provision of the bill relates to a protected subject matter. That is whether it modifies the electoral system and franchise for Scottish parliamentary elections. In the case of this bill, in my view, no provision of the carers allowance supplement Scotland's bill relates to a protected subject matter. Therefore, the bill does not require a supermajority to be passed at stage 3. There will be a brief suspension before we move to the open debate. Members, we are leaving the chamber to do so as quickly and quietly as possible. The next item of business is a debate on motion 1554, in the name of Ben Macpherson, on the carers allowance supplement Scotland's bill. I would invite members who wish to contribute to this debate to press the request-to-speak buttons. I now place an R in the chat function. I call on the minister to speak to and move the motion for around seven minutes. I am very pleased to present the carers allowance supplement Scotland's bill to Parliament for this stage 3 debate. I would also like to begin again, and as we have done through the stage 3 considerations collectively, by recognising and thanking the thousands of unpaid carers across Scotland who make a remarkable contribution to our society. I would also like to place on record my thanks to the Parliament and the Social Justice and Social Security Committee in securing an accelerated timetable for this bill. This was critical to ensuring that we increased December's carers allowance supplement payment. I would also like to thank the committee members on clerks for their work on the bill and also to thank my bill team and also my private office. The Scottish Government has taken action to address the fact that carers allowance was otherwise the lowest of all working-age benefits. Carers allowance supplement, which was the first payment made by Social Security Scotland, increases carers allowance by around 13 per cent. It provides carers with an additional £462.80 a year on top of their carers allowance in recognition of the role they play in our society. Since 2018, we have paid over £149 million to around 120,000 carers through the carers allowance supplement. Carers in Scotland, continuously in receipt of carers allowance and carers allowance supplement, will have received over £2,270 more than carers in the rest of the UK since it was launched. Moreover, we have invested around £1.3 million since October 2019 through our young carer grant, the first support of its kind in the UK. We have heard from young carers how that has helped them to make a difference in their lives and help them to access more opportunities. Overall, through our Social Security powers, we have invested more than £350 million a year in supporting carers through carers allowance, carers allowance supplement and the young carer grant. Indeed, of the 11 benefits that we are now delivering, the carers allowance supplement and the young carer grant are two of seven brand new benefits that support people across Scotland by putting money directly into their pockets. That, of course, is in stark contrast to the other news this week of universal credit being cut by £20 a week by the UK Government. As colleagues know, the provisions in the bill seek to increase the amount of the carers allowance supplement to be paid in December 2021, in just a few months time, in recognition of the increased pressures carers are facing and have faced as a result of the pandemic. The bill ensures a payment of £462.80 will be made in December to all carers allowance supplement recipients instead of the planned £231.40. This is the second time that we have done this, with the first time being through the emergency coronavirus legislation last year and the additional supplement payment being made in June last year. Then, and now, this is an additional investment by the Scottish Government of around £20 million to assist carers in these challenging times. In total, that means that our investment this year and last in carers allowance supplement and our additional payments is therefore around £120 million from our own budgets. We do that as has been debated through the stage 3 amendment from a fixed budget, a largely fixed budget in a devolved settlement. Now that we are in the last phase of the stage of the bill, will he address the issue that was raised repeatedly by my colleague Jeremy Balfour? Why exactly, given everything that the minister is saying in his speech, why will the Government not review and report to Parliament in the way that he is describing the success that he is talking about? Why will he not allow Parliament to review, to see the review and to scrutinise the performance of this benefit? I thank Stephen Kerr for his intervention and I know that he does so through a position of advocating the principles of transparency and collective evaluation. I point him to my letter of 6 October, which is several sides, not one side of A4. He will get an indication from that piece of correspondence of the evaluation work that has been done and is on-going to make sure that our benefits are delivering, as is envisaged by the 2018 act and through our charter and through all the other ways in which we measure our performance and set our direction. Focsing back on what is before us today, the increased payment, if we pass the bill today, will help to mitigate some of the negative impacts of the virus on carers' own finances and wellbeing and help them to continue to provide vital caring roles at a time when health and social care services are, as we know, stretched more than they would be in normal times. Will the minister give commitment to unpaid carers across Scotland that the certainty that they need and the money that they will need in their pockets will be available again in June? There will be a payment in June of the carers allowance supplement, as there has been throughout the process since the introduction of the carers allowance supplement in 2018. Whether there is an additional supplement, as we have debated through the various stages of the bill, will be down to budget considerations that we will undertake collectively as a Parliament in due course. We also recognise, of course, that the pandemic has identified a need for greater flexibility in how we support carers when society faces significant changing circumstances. That is why the bill includes a power to enable ministers to bring forward regulations, which, if approved by the Parliament, could increase the amount of the carers allowance supplement in future periods, as Pam Duncan Glancy inquired about then. As I noted in stage 1, we are continuing to work with carers and organisations to represent and support them, to consider options to improve support through the introduction of Scottish Carers Assistance, a replacement for carers allowance ahead of the consultation planned for this winter. There is a bit more about Scottish Carers Assistance in my concluding remarks, but we will create a Scottish Carers Assistance that works better for carers than the current carers allowance. The improvements that we make will build on changes that we have already made, and those already planned to improve support for Scotland's unpaid carers, which has been a priority with our social security powers. I urge everyone to support the bill, and I move that the Parliament agrees that the Carers Allowance Supplement Bill will be passed. To avoid curtailing the debate, I am minded to accept a motion without notice to move decision time back to 5.20, and I would invite the Minister of Parliamentary Business to move such a motion. The question is that, under rule 11.2.4, decision time is moved to 5.20. Are we all agreed? Thank you very much indeed. I now call on Miles Briggs to speak for around six minutes. I also start by thanking all those in Parliament and outside of Parliament, especially the organisations that have provided assistance and briefings as we have seen the passage of the Carers Allowance Supplement Bill. Scottish Conservatives accepted the reasons given by ministers and the Scottish Government for the expedited timetable for consideration of the bill. We, as a party of work, constructively to ensure that unpaid carers receive the doubling of the payment ahead of Christmas and in December when it will be made. However, I would put on record my disappointment that the bill has not provided the opportunity to take forward, at an earlier stage, some of the improvements that all parties supported at the male election. Indeed, the constructive amendments that we saw in the name of Maggie Chapman and Jeremy Balfour at both stage 2 and stage 3 of the bill. I am disappointed in the Green Party today. The Green members seem to have lost their voice at stage 2 of the bill, because there are some very positive elements that we have brought forward, which Parliament has no rejected. I think that that is disappointed. The passage of the bill has indeed presented a number of important areas where I believe that there is cross-party support for reform and improvement around the uptake and delivery of support for carers in Scotland. I welcome the letter that the minister sent to the committee yesterday regarding on-going work and the review around carers' benefits, including work specifically around the young carers grant. Unpaid carers are indeed the backbone of our social care system, and they often go unrecognised. I want to thank Scotland's unpaid carers, especially young carers, for everything that they have done and the work that they undertake to provide care and love to people across Scotland. That is why, throughout the passage of the bill, Scottish Conservatives have tried to progress how we can further support Scotland's carers. The committee heard many responses outlining concerns with regard to the qualifying rules of carers' allowance, including young carers not being able to get the young carer grant if they are in receipt of carers' allowance at the time they are applying for the young carers grant. The committee's report has raised all the important issues with regard to eligibility criteria. I hope that the minister and the cabinet secretary, who is still in the chamber, in government will be able to outline to Parliament at the earliest opportunity their approach to those issues and how and when progress to extend the additional payments to those caring for multiple persons will be able to be delivered by Parliament. There is cross-party support for that, and I hope that we will see that brought forward as soon as possible. As I outlined during the stage 1 debate, Scottish Conservatives also support early action to extend payments for carers after bereavement and for the new support package for people who often have to give up work to care for a loved one. That call has been supported by carers organisations and we heard that at committee. Although the minister has not included that specific ask within the letter that he wrote to the committee yesterday, I hope that the minister will agree to meet with me and discuss this important reform and how we can progress this change at the earliest opportunity. I have also written to the cabinet secretary for education to ask about what support and reforms can be taken forward around bereaved carers to access training and specifically mental health support. We know that the number of young carers in Scotland has been impacted and have increased during the pandemic, but we need to now look towards their educational needs and the attainment gap that has grown wider and wider for them. It is an incredibly important issue that I hope that across Parliament we can find cross-party support for improvements and reforms. There is also a real need to take a cross-portfolio approach to carers rights and the package of support that the country can deliver. I hope that ministers across government will look at how they will individually be able to add value within their respective departments. As has been stated by carers and carers representatives during the passage of the bill, it is vital that we recognise the importance of carers being able to access support, but that goes beyond just financial support. We need to see a system and package of support in place for carers across Scotland that considers each individual need for that carer and a carer as a whole. I hope that all sectors and all arms of this Government and local authorities can look towards where we can add value to help support Scotland's carers to improve their lives and future opportunities. To conclude, Scottish Conservatives welcome the carers allowance supplement bill. Unpaid carers, as I have said, are the backbone of our social care system. It is only right that they receive this additional payment to mitigate the financial effects of the pandemic. I hope that many reforms and asks of carers, which we have heard during the passage of the bill, will be heard by ministers today. We have certainly, at committee, taken on board many of their views, which they have been put to us as we have taken evidence. I certainly hope that ministers and Parliament will look towards how we take those forward at the earliest opportunity. Scottish Conservatives will support the bill at decision time. I am pleased to open the debate for Scottish Labour. I would like to begin by thanking the committee clerks specifically for their hard work on the bill and for the other colleagues on the committee. The bill, before this chamber today, seeks to put more money in the pockets of unpaid carers this December by doubling the winter payment of carers allowance supplement. As someone who relies on care, both paid and unpaid, I cannot stress enough to the chamber again the importance of the care provided by all carers across Scotland. I would like to say again today, thank you to every single one of them, both paid and unpaid, for years of support from me personally and for the millions of people across this country who rely on care. Scottish Labour recognises the importance of unpaid carers and the contribution that they make. Carers have gone above and beyond during this pandemic, working more hours, taking on more responsibility, all while the services that should have been there to support them were reduced and in some instances removed altogether. Carers deserve more than just our praise. They need bold and transformative action. One carer described to me that thanks and love does not pay the bills. While we believe that the bill does not go far enough to recognise carers, we appreciate that it does more for them than is the case now. In that vein, we will be supporting the bill today. However, the Government has much to do for the Government. There are an estimated 1 million unpaid carers across Scotland. They need us to go even further to tackle the poverty and inequality that they face. Disappointed that the amendments put forward in my name and in the name of Jeremy Balford did not pass, those amendments would have given carers more certainty over the money that they will have in their pockets. The uplift to the carers allowance supplement was introduced because the Government recognised the additional pressures facing unpaid carers during the pandemic. It was the right thing to do then, and the pandemic is far from over. Just last week, the Scottish Government rightly condemned the Tory Government for its failure to maintain an uplift to universal credit, an uplift that was also introduced to recognise the unprecedented situation brought about by the Covid-19 pandemic. It was wrong to remove the uplift to universal credit, catastrophic in my view. It is also wrong not to give carers the certainty of committing to their uplift too. I have met many carers organisations and those who require care. The realities that they have shared with me have highlighted why, now more than ever, we need to focus our efforts on the inequality that they face. I have heard how some carers are caring for 24 hours, seven days a week, and 90 per cent have said that they have done it without a break. In many places across the country, they are still waiting on the services that they relied on, pre-pandemic, to recommend. I want to take this opportunity to reiterate to the Government the importance for carers and people who use services of getting them back up and running as soon as possible. We are not back to normal, far from it. Although I hope that we will strive forward for a better and new, more equal normal, we must recognise that those additional pressures brought about by the pandemic still exist, especially for unpaid carers in Scotland. We must recognise that they were struggling to make ends meet long before Covid. The reason to act is long-standing. The reality is that often carers do not have a choice to care. They take on responsibilities in the absence of a social care system that fully meets the needs of those they care for. They are stepping up and stepping in when there is no one else to do so. Some have had to give up work, many of whom are women, and that puts them further into poverty. Indeed, in the Social Security Committee this week, we heard of the needs to address this inequality and the importance of lifting women doing unpaid care out of poverty to reaching our child poverty targets. This morning, in gender highlighted this and noted that the urgent need to address the chronically low carers benefits to doing this. Carers allowance is currently set at the equivalent of 15 hours a week at the living wage. That is below the poverty line. The Scottish Government has held powers to reform this for the past four years, yet it does not expect to be in a position to review Scottish carers assistance and pay more until 2025. Deputy Presiding Officer, I have already aired my frustration at this and at the constraints that have been placed on us in terms of our freedom to amend this bill and bring long-term transformation. It is a shame that we are not here today debating a bill that would do just that, a policy that could have the potential of done right to give financial security and certainty to carers in the long term. This is a missed opportunity. With 90 per cent of Scotland's carers still unable to claim carers allowance, we should be using the powers of this Parliament to revise eligibility criteria that currently lets too many slip through the net. Instead, carers are being left at the hands of the DWP until the Scottish Government is ready to pick up their rulebook. Carers simply cannot wait that long. Deputy Presiding Officer, this legislation will provide a welcome but temporary measure to ease the financial pressure on carers right now, and we will support it, but it by no means addresses the wider inequality they face. We know that the efforts of the pandemic are going to be far felt. The effects of the pandemic will be far felt beyond the payment, and we also know that caring responsibilities will not disappear. Indeed, they will increase. In the weeks and coming months ahead, Scottish Labour will continue to push the Government to go faster, do everything in its power to support unpaid carers and reform carers allowance. However, today, we recognise that, although it may not be enough, the bill will put money in the pockets of carers, and Scottish Labour will always support doing that. If it hadn't before, the value and need for unpaid carers shone bright through this pandemic. This bill is our commitment that recognises their commitment. It does not cover every carer, it's far short of that, but those that it does will receive an essential supplement to their income. It's an essential supplement, but we should never kid ourselves that this will be enough for most. We know the financial struggles that they endure week in, week out, which is why we must return to this when we consider shaping the new benefit, the carers assistance. I had hoped that the Government would end the uncertainty for next year, at least by committing to the supplement for next year. Unpaid carers now face the possible prospect of a cut, just like universal credit, next year. That is because the trauma of the pandemic has not ended. In fact, the costs continue to rise for carers just like everyone else. I thank Willie Rennie for taking the intervention. I am sure that he would acknowledge that we have had an additional payment since 2018. What we have done in June 2020 and intend to do in December this year is pay an additional payment to secure the power in order to potentially make such additional payments in the future, if that is the will of Parliament. It is not guaranteed, which could result in payment going up, but it could equally go back down again. The sooner we get the commitment, the sooner the unpaid carers of this country will get the certainty that they need through incredibly difficult times. I am sure that the Minister understands that. I just do not buy the argument from the Minister and the Government that this is subject to future budget negotiations. It makes multi-year commitments all the time. For the Government with a multi-billion-pound budget, this is insignificant. Largily, fixed cost was the qualified description of the Government's budget when the Minister was challenged. Largily, fixed cost was not completely fixed cost. He has got the flexibility. He has a multi-billion-pound budget. He could make this commitment to reduce the uncertainty for carers. For the individual carers, this is worth so much more, but for the Government it is not a big deal. Given that we require carers to provide 35 hours of care a week, the amount is equivalent to £2 an hour. The increase is not enough to take them out of poverty. We will have to look at the financial commitment that we can make if we are going to address the fundamental problems that carers experience. We need to look at the matter in the long term in the carers assistance process. The underlying entitlement issues need to be addressed, too, because at present there is a massive gap between the number of unpaid carers in Scotland and the tiny number who receive the allowance. The current benefit only provides support for one in 10 carers. Those who are of pensionable age are denied support, as are many other categories as well. With the carers assistance, we need to investigate how we can extend the coverage. I want to thank the committee, the clerks, the officials and the minister for their rapid work on this bill. I want to pay particular credit to Pam Duncan Glancy and Jeremy Balfour for provoking and for challenging the minister and the Government and the SNP and green benches throughout the process. I am in admiration of the work that they have done. At stage 1, I talked about Amy Newton, who has MS, and the experience of her world that she provided for me in just one afternoon. I was exhausted after shopping with clouded goggles, thick gloves and heavy weights. We owe Amy the hundreds of thousands of people like her and their carers for a proper level of support. It must be a job that this Parliament returns to, with a full commitment to doing right by them. We will support the bill this afternoon. Further to my earlier contributions, I wanted to make a more general speech about the merits of this bill before stage 3 is completed. This bill delivers a second double payment of the Scottish Government's carer supplement. It means that the eligible carers in Scotland are due to get an additional £462.80 on top of their regular carers allowance. The evidence that we heard in committee from carers and representative stakeholders proves why that is necessary, but it also goes some way to demonstrate the value that this Government places on the role that is being played by unpaid carers. Carers Scotland estimates the economic value that they contribute to be over £10 billion a year to Scotland, but it is far harder to measure the social and wellbeing impact that they make. There is no doubt that carers and the people that they are caring for have had a particularly difficult time over the past 18 months. Many have had to take on additional roles and faced additional costs during the pandemic. We heard about those challenges in evidence to the committee and it was also rightly raised at stage 1, not just financial challenges but also in terms of respite services. It is right, therefore, that we make sure that we keep doing what we can to assist those heroes to keep doing their phenomenal work for the people that they care for. By doubling the December payment, carers in Scotland will be £690 better off this year compared to those on carers allowance elsewhere in the UK. To go back to an element of the debate in the previous section, a line of argument being pursued by Miles Briggs and Jeremy Balfour and then an intervention by Stephen Kerr. I think that it needs correcting by them. First, the letter that came from the minister on 6 October, which Mr Briggs said was just a paragraph, actually extended to three pages and not just a paragraph. Perhaps Mr Briggs needs to check his printer settings as perhaps it was only the final page that came off his printer. Miles Briggs. For that point, I was specifically referring to support for carers of multiple persons. Having had a long discussion at committee during the passage of the bill, he will be very aware from this letter that there is just a paragraph on that. Neil Greene. The section about evaluation, which I thought was the point that Mr Briggs and Mr Balfour were referring to, is certainly longer than that. Also, on evaluation, there is a link to the published evaluation that the Scottish Government produced at December last year. There is no secrecy. There is no conspiracy, as some of the Conservatives would have wanted people to believe, far from it. The Tories today need reminding that their party continues to preside over carers allowance as the most miserly form of social security. That supplement is only available to eligible carers in Scotland. Perhaps the Tories want that supplement to go further. They could persuade their colleagues at Westminster to pull their weight by expanding payment or eligibility of carers allowance. If they will not, the calls that we hear today for the Scottish Government to go even further than their colleagues in Westminster lack any credibility whatsoever. Although the Scottish Government is investing in providing additional support to carers, the UK Government is shamefully cutting universal credit by £1,040 per year. Remember, many carers, unpaid carers, will also be receiving this supplement, will also be receiving universal credit. One Government investing in social security to support our citizens are carers, the other driving poverty by cutting social security. I have no doubt that we will have further discussions about future supplements via the regulatory power that this bill gives to ministers. I look forward to taking those views on the new Scottish carers assistance when those proposals are published soon. To conclude, Presiding Officer, I want to put on record again my thanks to carers across Scotland for all they do. I also want to thank those people who submitted their evidence and suggestions to the committee for our consideration. I also want to thank the team who supports the committee, such as our clerks and SPICE, for getting our scrutiny done in the termcated timescale. I very much hope that the bill passes unanimously tonight and that we can get the crucial support that our carers deserve in their pockets for December. Thank you very much, Mr Gray. I now call Jeremy Balfour, who will be followed by Marie McNair. Mr Balfour, around four minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I welcome the final stage of the bill? I am pleased that it will get all-party support tonight. I also want to thank the clerks and others who have got the bill through so quickly and smoothly. Presiding Officer, this is a measure that this place has power to implement. Unlike many issues that have been brought before this chamber over the past couple of weeks, it is within our remit to enact. It is therefore disappointing that this bill does not go as far as it could have gone. We pay other benefits such as PIP on a recurring basis. That is fixed within the budget of Scottish Government. I am still not clear why the Government cannot commit to this. Small sum for them, massive sum for carers into long-term budgeting process. The carers that give so much unseen work require that longer-term stability that they require. I do hope that we will get an early announcement from either the Cabinet Secretary or from the Minister as to never budget is announced or whether this will be happening again next summer and next Christmas. I hope that, at least, the Minister will commit in his summing up to coming back to Parliament before the end of this year to give us that commitment either one way or another. Presiding Officer, you will notice that I also lodged a number of other amendments, some of which were originally lodged by Maggie Chapman at stage 2. I find it curious that both at stage 2 and today both the SNP and the Greens voted against amendments. They were introduced by a member of their coalition. They were interested in helpful amendments, which I think would have given Parliament a greater role in scrutiny, but were quickly dismissed by the Minister. Ms Chapman has evidently learned from the harsh lesson that this Government is no way interested in constructive deviations from the rigid and dogmatic agenda. No, I am afraid I won't. We have seen today that the party of government talks about reaching out to other parties working together, but, when people come forward with constructive non-financial amendments, they are rejected. Do you want to make a decision? I was bringing forward financial amendments that require to be looked at through the budget process. Also, the point that has been made by a number of members about the reach to carers, the fact that people are saying that they want to reach more carers, surely it is better to look at the round about the need for carers support going forward rather than trying to amend a very, very clearly tight bill. Jeremy Balfour. For cabinet secretary, I have not read the amendments. It was reported that what this Government was doing, I was asking in some of my amendments, but you weren't even willing to support those. The point that the minister made in his closing statement when we were discussing the amendments was that we are starting the consultation period now. Any new benefit is likely to be introduced in 2025. That is four years unpaid carers have to live with this uncertainty because of what this Government has decided. To conclude, again I say that our carers, our individuals who give an enviable to our society and it behoves us in misplace to offer them not just one word but proper financial support. We will support this bill, but it could have been so much better if the Government had listened both to mine and to Labour's amendments. Mr Balfour and I call Marie McNair, who will be followed by Mark Griffin. I welcome opportunities speaking this debate and again put on record my support for unpaid carers because I have long recognised what they do. My support is shaped by my daily contact with my previous job as part of the nursing team at St Margaret's Scotland Hospice and my constituency. I also repeat my praise for the staff and volunteers of Carers of West Dunbartonshire and Carerslink East Dunbartonshire who provide outstanding support to carers in my constituency. Throughout our communities, the contribution of carers is invaluable and inspiring and I said at stage one debate that the care that they have given during this pandemic has been lifesaving. It is often someone looking after a parent, relative or friend and they see it as an automatic response to help someone they love and care for. With that support, the person can care for them and be able to live in their house and then really be part of the community and participate in the way they want to. This debate gives us the opportunity to put on record our thanks to every single unpaid carer for their dedication, love and compassion. This period has been incredibly difficult for many in society but many carers will have felt it more than others. The bill has passed today. It will recognise a massive contribution that unpaid carers have made during this pandemic by doubling the amount of carers allowance supplement to get this money into the pockets of carers for Christmas, a time of real financial pressure for families. I welcome that the chief executive of the carers group Voco has said that we believe that the carers allowance supplement is a positive step towards valuing the role of carers as equal partners in care and recognising their crucial contribution to Scotland's economy. We really do value carers. The carers allowance supplement is part of the wider support to carers that has been clearly set out and carefully budgeted for. I didn't support the amendments from the Opposition and it's disingenuous to suggest that we set future amounts of the supplement in this way, given the scale of what needs done, including the mitigation of a Westminster wrong that put carers on the lowest level of earning replacement benefit. The Opposition party should bring forward their budgets for debate and scrutiny at budget time and to do it another way will be seen by many carers as a continuation of false promises to them that has never really came to fruition. By doubling the supplement payment for December, more than 91,000 carers will receive additional support, which I know will bring some relief. However, more action is needed and I hope that colleagues across the chamber will agree to add their voice to calls for the UK Government to increase carers allowance, which is the lowest of all earning replacement benefits. Surely the Opposition must have better aspirations for the UK social security system and this really is a test of we are better together. The supplement has fixed a wrong inflicted on carers for years and for 45 years successive UK Governments have refused to align the amount paid with other earning replacement benefits. Now that our Parliament is listening, carers in Scotland have had 13 per cent increase and in addition will be £690 better off than carers south of the border. The Labour-Liberal Tony party has had all these years in Westminster to sort this and refused to do so. In fact, our current Westminster leaders from what I can see have never called in Parliament for the carers allowance to be aligned with the rate of jobseekers allowance. Once again, we are left to mitigate the shameful policies. I am just nearly finished. If the Westminster parties finally do the right thing, we will ringfest this money to further enhance support for carers in Scotland. We must, as quickly as possible, once we agree this bill to work closely with carers to revise the new system of carers assistance, one that leaves behind it and advocacy and inequality ingrained in the Westminster approach and one that responds to the real-world demands of carers in Scotland. As one of the co-communers of the cross-party group on carers and a former member of the Social Security Committee in the previous session, I am grateful to be speaking in this debate because carers deserve this additional payment. Being an unpaid carer is a 24-hour job done out of love, not for the allowance. Burn paid carers have likely lost income in the pandemic and have had the huge task of supporting severely disabled people, many of whom will have been shielding these last 18 months. Though they will get a lot of thanks from us and rightly so, they have been waiting years for carers allowance that makes the best of the powers that this Parliament now has. When the minister and I were on that former committee, the supplement, was one of the landmark policies that the whole committee agreed on. For my part, I was proud to ensure that the supplement was protected from inflation. Pandemic legislation saw as agreed to unique and substantial measures, the additional supplement, £20 uplift in universal credit and pandemic support payments to low-income families. They have all made a substantial positive impact on household budgets. They have been lifelines, but essentially what they have done has just made Social Security that little bit more adequate. They should have never been special measures in the first place. Looking at the responses that the committee has received, you can feel the importance that that additional payment makes to carers. Once caring can be very stressful for some carers, they are overworked and need a break. I get roughly £34 an hour to look after them and I don't get a break. Sometimes, all day and night, I care for them because I love them. I do it so they get the best care. The payment will relieve stress and that December is the hardest time financially as I want to give my kids all I can, but I also need to put food on the table. Those responses show the impact that those payments are having, so why should they be a one-off that is ending? We should consider the possibility that this might be the final additional supplement and it is similar to the decision to end the universal credit uplift. The Government hasn't done so with the same public malice as the Tories in that debate, but the effect on carers' income is no different. If we don't see a similar intervention next June, their income will fall. I hope that the Scottish Government will offer, in its next budget, a permanent uplift to the supplement and then set a route map to incorporation of that payment into the weekly award. It's time that the Government brought forward legislation on carers allowance through this chamber to set out a long-term settlement for unpaid carers to look forward to or even just to give them hope. Allowing full-time students to claim or offering a taper to end the earnings cliff edge would be a start. The underlying allowance is low and still delivered by the DWP, so we do need to get to a point where carers have a choice, certainly even over whether they get a better weekly payment or a lump sum. Although they get a great deal of thanks from us, they have now been waiting years for a carers allowance that makes the best of the new powers in this Parliament, and they have been waiting long enough. The income support paid to unemployed people is now as low as it was in 1992. As a proportion of earnings, it's the lowest it's been since the modern social security system began in the late 1940s. The £20 cut to universal credit and working tax credit, £1,040 a year, will impact over 400,000 Scots households. Over 20,000 of those will have a recognised unpaid carer. The Government analysis suggests that this will put an additional 60,000 people into poverty, including 20,000 children. This is on top of the benefit cap, the rate clause, the two-child limit, the benefit freeze and PIP. These constant attacks on the incomes of our poorest citizens form the backdrop to the bill that we debate today. The additional support for carers provided in this bill seems modest by comparison, and indeed it is. An extra £231 increase to carers allowance and a power for the Scottish Government to introduce further such increases are both very welcome, and that is why we will support the bill at decision time today. But we must recognise that it is only one very small part of the fundamental change we need in how unpaid care is recognised, valued and supported. Let's be very clear about just how valuable unpaid care is. Recently, the University of Strathclyde published a report on the value of unpaid care provided for people with learning disabilities. The care done by unpaid carers would cost £35,000 if paid at the rate of the living wage. And if those being cared for had instead to be transferred to supported accommodation, the cost would be £114,000. A carer interviewed, as part of this research said, and I quote, unpaid carers are the mortar in the wall. We are there, we are essential, but we are hidden. For decades, carers allowance itself has been hidden away, a backwater of the social security system neglected by successive UK Governments, and unfair rules have been in place for far too long. There is no recognition of care done for more than one person, nothing offered to those who care part-time, nothing for those who claim other income replacement payments and so on. Proposals in 2008 to provide an extra payment were welcomed by the Labour Government but were never implemented. This must change. We must have a social security system that reflects the incredible work that unpaid carers do. The forthcoming introduction of carers assistance and the consultation on the future of support for unpaid carers then are crucial opportunities to build a fairer social security system for carers and we cannot miss that opportunity. However, there is no escaping the fact that with the current powers that Parliament has, we are restricted to tinkering on the edges of a broken system. Scotland clearly needs greater powers over borrowing and social security. Before I close, I want to briefly raise the issue of take-up. About 80,000 people receive carers allowance and the supplement, and so we will receive this additional payment, but we know that there are 1 million people who do some level of unpaid care. DWP work to estimate take-up of disability and carer benefits was started long ago but never finished. It does not have to be this way. The Scottish Government's shared policy programme with the Greens has earmarked £10 million for income maximisation services, including for households with disabled people. We must see urgent action on this and I'd welcome an update from the minister on this issue. To close, Greens will vote for the bill at stage 3 today, but in doing so we are clear that this is but one small step towards a system that offers true dignity and respect to Scotland's unpaid carers. Thank you very much indeed, Ms Chapman. We now move to closing speeches. As members will be aware, those who have participated in the debate should be in the chamber for closing speeches. I would note that Mr Gray is not in the chamber, and I would expect an explanation for that. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I would like to begin by restating whatever the chamber has said already. Thank you to all those who have contributed to the bill's progress and to all organisations who gave evidence and briefing contributing to the passage of the bill. Thank you to carers who do so much and who often receive too little support and not enough recognition. We have heard from colleagues across the chamber just how challenging the past 18 months have been for carers, indeed the most challenging times that unpaid carers have ever faced. Services continue to be squeezed. Still not enough respite care is available. Colleagues have alluded to that really powerfully today, including Mark Griffin and Willie Rennie, speaking about the experiences of people who are caring for loved ones. In the past few weeks, we have seen councils across the Lothians and in Glasgow, for example, cutting back on care at home provision and asking unpaid carers yet again to do more. That is before we even get to the worst of winter. I said at stage 1 that it is important that we hear the voices of carers in this legislation and respond to what they ask of us. It is the least that we can do, and those benches have reiterated that today through our amendments. Although there has been a very constrained timetable for the bill, Scottish Labour has sought to hear what carers have told us and act upon it. The ability to increase the supplement, albeit for a limited number of months, is of course welcome. As colleagues have said, we have supported the bill and will support the bill today because we believe that putting extra money into the pockets of carers in time for Christmas is a vital step in supporting them at a very demanding time of year and in the midst of a pandemic, which is still very much impacting people's lives. It only goes so far, and we must do more. That is what the amendments of my colleague Pam Duncan-Glancy and Jeremy Balfour's amendments sought to do. The bill provides that one-off increase in carers allowance. It gives the power to increase future payments of the supplement, but, as we have already heard, that is not guaranteed. The bill should not be a missed opportunity to ensure that there is a guaranteed bridge of uplift for carers to have more financial security until the advent of carers assistance, but I fear that it will be. The Government had the opportunity to change the calculation to use universal credit and to fix that to the rate prior to the Tory's shameful cut. The eligible carers would have been entitled to a higher supplement, £480 more than the current supplement level, but the Government has refused to take that amendment on board. I ask what does that say to carers in Scotland. I was indeed disappointed not to hear Maggie Chapman speaking in her contribution about that amendment, which she had pursued in committee. The Government could have also today ensured that the increased supplement is paid every six months until carers assistance is rolled out. Currently, the bill only guarantees one payment of the increased supplement in December 2021, as we have heard. Mark Griffin made that point about what we would hope to see in terms of the long-term strategy and solution towards a meaningful uplift for carers in terms of carers allowance. At stage 1, the minister suggested that the Government intend to introduce Scottish carers assistance for new applications long before 2025. Those were his words. It would be helpful if, in concluding, he would clarify what is meant by that. When will carers have extra money in their pockets before 2025 and indeed how long before 2025 will that be? The chair of the committee, who is in his place now, said in his contribution that additional payments from the supplement will ensure that we provide greater recognition to those who help to look after a loved one. I think that we have seen today that there is absolutely a consensus around that in this chamber, but we have to ask ourselves, does that recognition cease at the end of December? Scottish Labour will support the bill to make more support available for stretched carers, but it is a sticking plaster to cover a gaping wind, and carers and carer organisations have been clear that it is not sufficient to lift carers out of poverty. We can do more, we must do more. The Scottish Government must hear the voices of carers who for too long have felt like an afterthought. I am delighted to close the stage 3 debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. At each stage of the bill, we have heard thoughtful contributions from members of all parties regarding the importance of unpaid carers. It has been said previously, but it is worth repeating that unpaid carers are the backbone of our social care system, and it is quite clear that that has been shared right across the chamber this afternoon. Although the bill's progress has been swift, it has also provided the opportunity to debate and scrutinise how we can best support unpaid carers. We are given the opportunity that, during the pandemic, we know that an additional 400,000 carers across Scotland had to be involved. For example, one challenging topic that we have discussed this afternoon is the area where it should be supporting carers who have more than one person to look after—someone, for example, who has too early patient and parents. The bill had the potential to help address that issue. We also spoke about members who have spoken about the role of young carers and how we can best support them. The amendments that were brought forward by my colleague Jeremy Balfour today would have provided a key opportunity for ministers to review those issues. Unfortunately, the Government was not willing to seize that opportunity. It is also disappointing that the amendment brought to stage 2 from those benches that would have provided greater financial certainty for unpaid carers by making the double huppment that was also rejected. Representative from groups from organisations such as Family Fund and the national care organisation have made it clear that that additional layer of financial certainty would have helped over the winter months. Examples of Lanarkshire carers who have spoken about how a permanent doubling of the supplement would give unpaid carers a fixed idea of their income over a longer period of time would have also given them the opportunity to go ahead. However, as the bill stands, it will ensure that ministers have the discretionary powers to double future payments on an ad hoc basis. However, we believe that it should not be on an ad hoc basis, and it should not be left to the ministerial whims. There are just two issues that have been brought apart within this debate, and those are many opportunities that we have seen. The fact that the Government has failed to capitalise on some of the potential that could have been, has been described this afternoon by others as a missed opportunity. I want to go on to some of the comments that we have heard this afternoon. The minister himself talked about opportunities, but what we have seen, as I have said, is missed opportunities to provide greater financial certainty to unpaid carers. My colleague Miles Briggs spoke about how there had been constructive work across this chamber and across parties, and that has been recognised. However, we also need to see how disappointed we were at the Greens at progressing and how they seem to have lost their voice today. Miles also spoke about the possibility for bereavement and mental health issues that have not been capitalised on either. Pam Duncan Glancy spoke about carers giving and going above and beyond. A million unpaid carers in Scotland pushed the pandemic. The pandemic, without anyone's notice, has helped to ensure that many unpaid carers are put under huge pressure, and she spoke about missed opportunities. Is there any comment on our commitment to recognising their commitment, and I think that that is vitally important, and how the subject of future budget negotiations were talked about, but there is still a gap exist, and that gap will continue to exist, as he talked about. Miles also paid tribute to Jeremy Balfour for his powerful amendments that he put forward and the passion that he has within the topic. Nobody in this chamber can deny that. He talked about the commitment of carers going beyond and going far and doing what they can, but once again he spoke about the missed opportunities that we see here today. In conclusion, I have said nothing today would imply that the bill is not very much welcomed by those benches, because it is welcomed by those benches. However, it provides financial assistance to over 90,000 carers this winter, which is something that we wholeheartedly support. However, it is nevertheless disappointing that, in the respect of the bill, it has failed to come up to its full potential. Going forward, the debate around the vital contribution that unpaid carers make to our society and how the social security system should impact is very important, and that will continue to be something that is discussed for the weeks, months and years ahead. However, even if the bill has failed to address many of the aspects that we had hoped for, the potential is still here, and I have no doubt that supporting the bill and the Conservatives will provide very much welcome support to individuals this December. I support the bill. Thank you very much indeed, Mr Stewart. I now call on Ben Macpherson to wind up the debate minister for around six minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It is clear from the debate this afternoon that there is cross-party support for the intent behind this bill to increase December's carers allowance supplement payment, and I really appreciate that from all parties. We have demonstrated together our recognition and appreciation for the remarkable role that carers across Scotland play and have played particularly during the pandemic and the impact that this has had on them. As I made clear in my opening contribution, the Government is building a social security system based on the principles of dignity, fairness and respect, and this bill intends to offer further support to carers across Scotland who have been under additional pressure because of the pandemic. This is more than warm words. This is standing up and making a financial investment at an important time and undertaking the legislative process in order to do that. So this Government is committed to doing things and that is what this bill is all about. A number of points were raised during this debate, Presiding Officer, which I may not have capacity to address all of them, but a series of questions have been raised around Scottish Care's assistance and where we move forward from here. It is clear that there is a determination across the chamber to do more. We want to do more. We all want to do more. That is why we continue as a Government to make good progress towards the launch of Scottish Care's assistance, including the additional payment for those with multiple caring roles. Due to the impacts of the pandemic, both the Scottish Government and the DWP, who are integral to our work in this phase, have had to work on a new timetable for delivering Scottish Care's assistance and transferring Scottish clients in receipt of carers allowance. However, as I said, we are making good progress. We have started feasibility work with the DWP and will carry on into the new year. That will give us much more detailed understanding of what needs to be done and how long it will take. Our aim is to progress building systems that are required for Scottish Care's assistance and the additional payment in the new year. We anticipate that that will take a minimum of 18 months, given the complex interactions between carer benefits and the reserved benefits system. Given that it will possibly take 18 months to get to that point and carers are living in extreme poverty now, I ask you again to give a commitment that you will double the supplement again in June, when the pandemic will be far from over and again in December and again until you can address the adequacy of the payment. As I have said on several occasions to that important question, we will absolutely be giving consideration to those matters in the budget process and I urge all parties to give it that seriousness and that attention. When we begin delivering Scottish Care's assistance, our immediate priority is to protect the support that carers already in receipt of carers allowance rely on and to ensure that the transfer of their benefits is safe and secure, as well as opening a new application process. That means that we will not be able to make any additional changes to eligibility immediately. However, there is one exception to that, which I have mentioned already, which is introducing the additional payment for those with multiple caring roles, as was raised by Miles Briggs. Moreover, all of that is considered does not mean that we will not be making improvements from the launch of our new support. We want to deliver a better service and we will be working with carers to design applications and communications so that they will work for the people who use them. We will also use the new benefit to help carers to find out more about other support that they might be entitled to. When looking to prioritise the further changes that can be made once safe and secure is complete, we need to carefully consider the balance between extending eligibility for Scottish Care's assistance and increasing the amount of Scottish Care's assistance. Working with carers and organisations that support them, we have identified 15 options for changes that we could make when we introduced our replacement to carers allowance to Scottish Care's assistance. That includes the option to make a recognition payment to carers with underlying entitlement—a point that Willie Rennie raised—and action to expand payments for carers after bereavement, as Mr Briggs highlighted. We are working with stakeholders to undertake further analysis to identify which options should be progressed in advance of consulting on final proposals for Scottish Care's assistance this winter. We have secured the financial resource for doubling December's carers allowance supplement, which is why we prioritised bringing forward this bill, which was one of our 100-day commitments in our first programme's bill to be passed by this Parliament if Parliament chooses to do that. That is about focusing on getting assistance to carers this December. As was noted at stage 2, of course there is more that we could do and there is more that the UK Government could do in terms of carers allowance generally. Let's come together today to acknowledge the fact that this bill will ensure a payment of £462.80 will be made in December to all carers allowance supplement recipients instead of the planned £231.40, and there will be an additional payment this year to unpaid carers in receipt of carers allowance of £694.20 more than those south of the border. There has been a bit of negativity in the debate today, but it is a positive thing that we have before us. There is more that we can do and there is more that we will do together to support unpaid carers in the months and years ahead, but together we can make a difference today, so let's make that difference and I urge Parliament to pass the carers allowance supplement Scotland bill. That concludes the debate on carers allowance supplement Scotland bill. It is now time to move on to the next item of business, which is consideration of two Scottish Government motions. I ask John Swinney on behalf of the Scottish Government to speak to and move motions 1597 and 1598 on withdrawal of SSIs. It is vital for local democracy and for local service delivery that councils are as representative as possible of the communities that they serve. Following the Islands Act 2018, Boundaries Scotland have reviewed the council war boundaries of all local authorities with inhabited islands and submitted their recommendations to ministers. The Scottish elections reform act 2020 removed ministerial discretion to reject or modify those proposals. The decision whether or not to implement Boundaries Scotland's recommendations now rests exclusively with Parliament. The local government housing and planning committee have considered each of the reviews and I agree with the committee's assessment that Boundaries Scotland have discharged their duties in a professional and competent manner. The committee disagreed with some of the recommendations for Highland Council and Argyllin Bute Council. As a consequence of the decision by the committee, I consider the appropriate action for ministers to take is that we will ask Boundaries Scotland to take a further look at those proposals. Parliament agreed yesterday to the reviews for Collier and Neeranshire, Orkney Islands, Shetland Islands and North Ayrshire. Those changes will therefore be in place for the local government elections in May 2022. It is regrettable that there was not sufficient agreement to allow the wards for Highland and Argyllin Bute to be updated in time for the 2022 elections. The committee has called for the councils involved to engage with Boundaries Scotland on new reviews of those areas. I echo that call. However, I would also stress to members that an independent boundary commission is widely considered to be a key feature of democratic societies. It will not always be possible for Boundaries Scotland to resolve all concerns raised, but I believe that Parliament should have confidence in how Boundaries Scotland carry out their functions. We will monitor progress with the new reviews closely and include that experience in our post-legislative assessment of the new laws surrounding boundary reviews. I therefore propose that the instruments in relation to Highland and Argyllin Bute councils be withdrawn and move the motions that stand in my name. The question on those motions will be put at decision time. The next item of business is consideration of parliamentary bureau motion 1601 on temporary standing orders. I ask George Adam on behalf of the parliamentary bureau to speak to and move the motion. Motion S6M-1601 amends temporary standing order rule 3 to extend the period for which access to the public gallery is suspended until 24 December 2021, in light of the on-going public health circumstances. Members will wish to note that, should circumstances allow it, it would be possible for the Presiding Officer to reinstate access to the gallery before that date. I move the motion in my name, Presiding Officer. The question on this motion will be put at decision time. There are four questions to be put as a result of today's business. I seek your guidance understanding order rule 13.2 on how I can request a minister to exercise their ability to provide a statement as to why, since the start of this academic year in the daily coronavirus Covid-19 data that is issued at 2 o'clock each day, a sub-paragraph contains the phrase, Data on students at universities and colleges testing positive for Covid-19 is no longer being updated as most teaching has stopped for the summer. Universities went back as far as the 4 September of the start of their term. So how can a minister from this government be urged to attend to give a statement as to why the academic dates are not known within government but more importantly why the data has not been provided? I thank the member for his point of order. Mr Wittfield will be aware that consideration of the business programme is a matter for the Parliamentary Business Bureau in the first instance. Mr Wittfield may therefore wish to ask his business manager to raise this matter at the next meeting of the Parliamentary Bureau. There are four questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first is the motion 1554, in the name of Ben Macpherson, on carers allowing supplement Scotland's bill at stage 3 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Parliament is agreed but as this was a stage 3 debate there will be a vote and there will be a very short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system. Thank you very much.