 Felly, wrth gwrs, rydyn ni'n ddweud y cyfleidio cyfraith a'r ffordd o'r gweithio bydd yn stwygiad yng Nghymru a'r Gweithredu Celfraith. Y dweud y lluniau eraill yn y Bydd i'r ddweud o F1405 o'r newid i siwn i Rhobeithsyn, o'r ffordd o'r ddweud i'r gweithio gyda'u cyfleidio ar gyfer y Llywodraeth Cymru, o'u cyflwyno'n cyfrorthiau i'r credit ynglynig. I would invite members who wish to participate in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now or as soon as possible, or place an R in the chat function if they are joining us online. I call Shona Robison to speak to and move the motion for around 11 minutes. It is a pity that the leader of the Scottish Conservatives is not staying to hear about the concerns about the cut that his UK colleagues are going to make to universal credit. We should not need to be having this debate. We should not have to consider the hardship that the UK Government's decision. Mr Balfour, I think that I've been off, Cabinet Secretary. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Of course, Douglas Ross himself does have a vote, so perhaps listening to the debate would perhaps help him to make his mind up about how he should vote in these matters. We should not have to consider the hardship of the UK Government's decision to cut universal credit by £20 per week, which will cause to the 6 million people across the UK. We should not have to debate a cut that will push 60,000 people in Scotland, including 20,000 children, into poverty. We should not need to use this chamber to add our voices to the increasingly urgent calls for the UK Government to reverse this senseless and harmful decision. Everyone in this chamber is aware of the enormous social and economic disruption of the Covid-19 pandemic. The number of people in Scotland in receipt of universal credit has more than doubled since the start of the pandemic to around £480,000 as of July this year. The UK Government should already have done the right thing. As the Government with the full powers over universal credit, at a time of rising prices and costs, at a time of increasing poverty, it should already have said that it will make this £20 per week uplift permanent, yet across the UK, while the people— The cabinet secretary outlined, because it is not in her motion, that Scottish ministers believe that the £9 billion that would be needed would come to permanently have that increase in place. As one of your Conservative members was telling me just last week, those are about political choices that are being made. The political choice of the UK Tory Government at the moment is not to continue the £20 uplift to our most vulnerable in our society at a time of rising fuel prices and food prices. It is unsustainable for that position to hold. The cabinet secretary talked about political decisions last week that I brought about, which would have seen the doubling of Scottish child payment. Was that a political decision for SNP members not to support me on that? The member knows that we are going to double the Scottish child payment. We are going to give more money to families. The member across the chamber is going to take money from Scottish families. There is the fundamental difference. This Government gives money to families. The UK Tory Government takes money away from families. Across the UK—and this is not just an issue for Scotland—along the UK, while people are facing a perfect storm of the end of the furlough scheme, a high-kind national insurance contribution and rising energy and food prices, that cut threatens to compound those issues and deal millions of households a hammer blow of hardship. Analysis from the Scottish Government shows that the cut to universal credit is set to reduce UK welfare expenditure in Scotland by more than £460 million by 2023-24. That will be the biggest overnight reduction to a basic rate of social security for more than 70 years. The UK Government did the right thing at the start of the pandemic and recognised that the standard allowance of universal credit was not sufficient to live on. The chancellor at the time said that it was, I quote, to strengthen the safety net available to people. Analysis from the Legutum Institute published this week shows that the uplift prevented 840,000 people across the UK, including 290,000 children, from being pushed into poverty. A recent report from Sysons Advice showed that more than one-third of universal credit recipients across the UK would be in debt after paying just their essential bills as a result of the cut. One-third of universal credit recipients will be in debt. If the member can answer why he thinks that a third of universal credit recipients should be in debt after his Government cuts universal credit, he will be happy to take an intervention. Stephen Cewd. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for giving way. She talked earlier about the right thing to do. I think that we can all agree across all the parties in this chamber the right thing to do is to help people to get off universal credit. The best thing that we can do for people is to help people to find work. Would the cabinet secretary welcome the £3.2 billion investment that is made by the UK Government in doubling the number of work coaches to 27,000? Does that not just reveal the thinking of the Tories? It is not even to recognise that such a huge number of people on universal credit are already in work. Do you even know that? They are already in work. It fails to understand the position, as so many Tories unfortunately fail to understand the position of what people face on universal credit. The Institute's research highlights the need for this money. The chancellor again said to benefit our most vulnerable households that this money was required. There is no difference. Those people are no less vulnerable now, and if anything, with rising costs of living and a national insurance hike on the way, they are in an even more precarious position than ever. I call on the UK Government again, on behalf of the Scottish Government and on behalf of this Parliament, to reverse the planned cut. It is not just the Government and the Parliament that have expressed their outrage and alarm at the planned cut. Calls for the lifeline to be kept have come from organisations and individuals across the political spectrum. The four social security committees and the four children's commissioners of the UK nations have written to the UK Government, too, standing up for the people they represent and calling for this lifeline to be maintained. From the Conservative Party alone, Baroness Ruth Davidson, Alexander Stewart and all six former work and pension secretaries, since 2010, are calling for a reversal. They can't all be wrong, surely the members of the Tory benches can't think that every single one of them is wrong. The Scottish Government itself has written to the UK Government on eight occasions throughout the pandemic, asking for them to make the uplift permanent and to extend it to legacy benefits. The unity from such a diverse range of voices, not common, I have to say, urging the UK Government to reconsider, should make it clear that this isn't a question of partisan politics. It's about doing the economically, socially and morally right thing. Presiding officer, I am certain that colleagues across the chamber will also share my grave concerns at the repeated refusal of the UK Government to conduct any impact assessments of the effects of this cut. Most recently, the then Minister for welfare confirmed on 17 September that the Department of Work and Pensions had not and would not conduct analysis of the effects of the cut. Yet, an anonymous UK Government official quoted in the Financial Times, confesses that it was well understood that the cut will see homelessness, poverty and food bank usage soar—something that we all know is the case. It's hard to fathom why the UK Government would choose to proceed with this cut without properly assessing its impact. So much so that the UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty described the cut as deliberately retrogressive and unconscionable. It's no wonder that he felt he had no choice but to write to the Prime Minister calling for the cut to universal credit to be reversed while noting that the UK Government's choice to remove the uplift may fail to conform to international human rights law. Perhaps the most sobering insight into what this cut will mean comes directly from the people who are going to be affected. According to the Work and Pensions Committee earlier this month, a current recipient of universal credit spoke very movingly of the effect that the cut will have on his family. He said, Before the uplift was introduced, we were already on a knife edge to do with food versus fuel. The uplift sent some relief, and for that to be removed is going to leave us with that big question again. Do I go hungry? Do my kids go hungry? Or do we keep the house warm? That is the terrible decision that will be facing too many families this winter unless this decision is reversed. I want to remind everyone at this juncture that this cut is not inevitable nor is it something that is happening because it is expected to improve the lives of those affected. We know it isn't going to. This is a conscious decision to remove support from people who rely upon this uplift as a lifeline to allow basic needs to be met and to live with a modicum of dignity. The Prime Minister has repeatedly defended the cut by suggesting that taking money away from people in receipt of universal credit will encourage them to take up work. We have heard that again repeated today, yet more than a third of universal credit recipients are already in work. It is at best doubtful that placing additional stress and hardship on them will make it easier for them to find and work longer hours. The UK Government's argument also ignores the estimated 2.7 million people who are either not expected to work or are expected to work more limited hours due to illness, disability or caring commitments. They deserve to live in dignity as well. An adequate social security system is needed all the time, not just during pandemics. As such, it is essential that we recognise that the payment level of universal credit was not sufficient before the pandemic and stands to be even less so after the cut. Years of a freeze on the UK Government's benefits means that universal credit has not kept pace with rising living costs. Therefore, maintaining that uplift is the absolute bare minimum that the UK Government should do. Taking the opportunity now to fix the many shortcomings with universal credit that have been well documented for years should also be the case. Although it is neither practical or sustainable for the Scottish Government to mitigate all the effects of the UK Government's cuts, we are going to do what we can within the powers that we have. As we rebuild from the pandemic, we have an opportunity to ground our recovery in changes that will make Scotland a more equal and inclusive society. In 2020-21, we invested around £2.5 billion to support low-income households, including nearly £1 billion to directly support children. We made over £1 billion of additional resource available to help communities through the Covid pandemic and to build resilience in public services, and we continue to provide the support that is needed to help people through the perfect storm that we are facing in the months ahead. In this Parliament, we will go further, taking ambitious steps to tackle child poverty, promote social justice and level the playing field for young people from low-income backgrounds and their families. Pamela Cynglancy. On that particular point, and on the particular points about the Scottish Government's responsibilities on reducing child poverty, will you agree that, given all of what we are going to hear today, the imperative to double the Scottish child payment immediately and to double it again to get us on track to meet the child poverty targets is crucial? Will you also commit to retaining eligibility for the Scottish child payment for the 4,000 families who will lose it if they lose their universal credit? As Pamela Cynglancy knows, we have set out the way that we will double Scottish child payment. The doubling of Scottish child payment has never been in doubt, but we will deal with that and take it forward as part of the budget discussions. I am happy to continue to discuss those issues with Pamela Cynglancy. In terms of the support that we are already providing to families, we have increased the school clothing grant £120 for primary kids £150 for secondary, and we are delivering free school meal provision in school holidays, supporting around 148,000 children and young people. We are doubling carers allowance supplement and extra investment forecast to be £21 million, backing the second time that this Government has doubled the benefit. We have declared a national mission to eradicate child poverty. While the UK Government is criticised by the Work and Pensions Committee for its lack of targets or strategy for tackling child poverty, the Scottish Government will publish its second tackling child poverty delivery plan next March, backed by £50 million over the lifespan of the plan. We will double Scottish child payment to £80 every four weeks as soon as we can in Parliament. In the interim, we have introduced bridging payments of £520 to be paid in both 2021 and 2022 for those who are getting free school meals due to low income, but it is finally... The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills is going to have to wind up on my phrase. To conclude, despite our best efforts, the Universal Credit Cup will undermine much of the positive effects of the Scottish child payment, and that is just not acceptable. That is why I call upon all colleagues across the chamber to make their voices heard and the voices of their constituents heard in a unified call on the UK Government to do the right thing and reverse their decision to cut universal credit, while extending the uplift to legacy benefits. I call on the chamber to support the motion in my name, which I now move. Before I invite the next speaker, I recognise the nature of this debate is going to excite emotions. People feel passionately about this. I would encourage all members to treat each other with respect, and there is a bit of time in hand, so if you have a contribution to make, please make it through an intervention, and I will give you your time back. Miles Briggs, can you speak to and move amendment 1405.1 for around seven minutes? Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. Unprecedented, it is a word that has been used time and time again by politicians throughout the Covid-19 public health emergency. However, the pandemic has indeed demanded government's act and for unprecedented decisions to be taken and unprecedented levels of support to be put in place. The UK Government has delivered one of the most comprehensive economic responses in the world to support families, jobs and businesses. Over this year and the last, the UK Government has provided over £407 billion to support families, jobs and businesses more than almost any other country in the world. That includes protecting around 14 million jobs through the furlough scheme and self-employment schemes. The pandemic response has also seen UK ministers delivering £14.5 billion in additional funding for Scottish Government ministers since the start of the pandemic. Responding to the exceptional circumstances of the pandemic, the UK Government increased the standard universal credit allowance by £20 per week. In March of this year, the UK Government agreed and announced to an additional six-month extension to that very uplift. Does he believe that, with the scrapping of the uplift, the crisis that we have faced is at an end? As we now see restrictions lifted and the opening up of the economy, we need to make sure that we see a different focus. That focus has to be on jobs-led recovery for the country, both Scotland and our United Kingdom as a whole. That is why the UK Government has delivered a comprehensive £30 billion plan for jobs to help to get people back into work. Even if we leave to one side whether or not the mythical jobs-based recovery is going to see any kind of fruition, what does he say to those on universal credit and working tax credits right now that are not expected to find work or find more work but are going to see their incomes slashed at a time when their costs are rising? We call for uplift to be extended during the actual worst of the pandemic. I am not sure in terms of mythical jobs that the member refers to, because the support that has been put in place has helped people to sustain that work. For many on low incomes, that has been critical, but today we have already seen help put in place to get people back into the workplace. As I was outlining, a plan for jobs—a £30 billion plan for jobs—is absolutely key to that. To date, that has already helped support over 69,000 young people into work through the Kickstart scheme, giving them the very best start in life. Kickstart gives young people at risk of long-term unemployment the chance to build their confidence and skills in the workplace and gain the experience that will help to improve their chances of going on to find long-term sustainable work. That should be something that we all want to see. I would help in this chamber. Helping long-term, would I get some time back? A bit of time back, yes. Pam Duncan-Glancy. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, for taking the intervention. Does the member recognise that, in the past year, more than 76,000 more disabled people have become unemployed as a result of the pandemic? Women are more likely to have had to give up paid work to carry out unpaid work. This morning, at the Equalities and Human Rights Committee, we heard that that can cost £15 million a day. Does the member recognise that the world of work is not the world of work that his party thinks it is, and that it is deeply unequal for many, many people living across Scotland and the United Kingdom? Miles Briggs. I will give you most of that time back. I share the member's concerns. We have discussed that on the Social Justice Committee. Why is it in Scotland that fewer disabled people are having opportunities to get an employment than the rest of the United Kingdom? It is something that ministers are scoffing at, but it is a vital point that she is answering. The member has to say that, although she is criticising the UK Government for not maintaining the uplift, we do not know what Labour's plans are, apart from saying that they would completely scrap universal credit at the last election. We need to get some details from Labour about their real view on that as well. The restart scheme, which I mentioned earlier, is vitally important. It is important because we need to look towards a national mission and a national priority to get people back into long-term employment. The UK Government has invested £2.3 billion on a higher to retain work coaching programme. That has seen the numbers doubling to nearly 27,000 people to give job seekers the personalised and intensive support that they need to move back into work. That was planned to be done by the end of the financial year, but that has already been achieved in just eight months. I have only got two minutes left, so sorry that I have not taken three interventions. Since April 2020, 1.6 million people have moved from unemployment back into employment from the universal credit intensive work search group. The UK Government has also invested over £200 million into the job entry target support scheme for those unemployed for over three months, which will support applicants with CV writing, interview skills, job search advice and looking toward tailored support, which we all hope to see. That has already helped support over 6,000 people in Scotland alone. What we desperately need to see is more training opportunities provided for the huge number of skilled job vacancies that we see available for people across sectors in Scotland today. That is why the loss of over 100,000 college training places under the SNP Government has clearly had a huge detrimental impact on our college sector, but also training opportunities available for many people. Making sure that a priority is given to training programmes and the full return of support and delivery of apprenticeship schemes, for example, is also critical to helping people to get back into work. To conclude, Deputy Presiding Officer, last night I watched the Cabinet Secretary on Television talking about the growing housing crisis that the SNP is presiding over here in the capital. She said and I quote that difficult decisions had to be taken with limited budgets available. Every government in every part of the world is finding that today. As a United Kingdom, we face a difficult decade ahead to recover from the social and economic impact of this pandemic. Scottish Conservatives always believe that the United Kingdom's best days are ahead of us, but what we need to see now and what is vitally important is for this Scottish Government to work constructively with UK Government ministers in a pursuit of a jobs-led recovery from this pandemic. I move the amendment in my name. Thank you very much, Mr Briggs. I now call on Pam Duncan Glancy to speak for around six minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am proud to open today for Scottish Labour in this debate. The cut to universal credit is cruel, heartless and in some cases could even be deadly. That's why I and my colleagues on these benches, as well as our colleagues in Westminster and Opposition parties across the UK have been calling for the Conservative Government to cancel the cut. I welcome the opportunity to come together with colleagues to send a strong message to the Conservative Government that Scotland and this Parliament does not support the callous move. Removing the £20 uplift would reduce social security to the lowest level in decades, and it will end once and for all any pretense about a just and fair recovery from the pandemic. Forget at all rhetoric of levelling up, this is simply part of a race to the bottom. The Tory Government rightly recognised at the outset of the pandemic that social security levels were simply too low for people to afford to even the bare essentials, and they brought in the £20 uplift. Only, however, for some people it didn't raise this for people on legacy benefits. Claims by millions of people, many of whom are disabled, and that, Deputy Presiding Officer, we believe was discrimination. Nonetheless, it did lift up universal credit because it recognised the poverty people experienced, and it must recognise that that situation has not changed. It was there before the pandemic, made worse by the pandemic, and people will still need that extra £20 after the pandemic. It was not a treat, it was a material recognition that people were being left to a life in poverty and, in some cases, being destitute by a failing social security system gutted by the Tory Government. For millions, slashing their money now will be an assault on their basic human rights. The cut has not even taken place yet, and already the increased anxiety is palpable. Research by the Trussell Trust found that one in four people believed that they were very likely to have to skip a meal if it goes ahead. That is the equivalent of 115,000 people in Scotland. Removing the cut will leave people struggling to keep warm too. The same research found that the equivalent of 101,000 people across Scotland will soon be very likely to be unable to afford to pay their heating bills. Just this morning, Citizens Advice Scotland published research showing that nearly 400,000 people have already missed an energy payment because they found themselves short of money. We know that the additional £20 a week has been used for essentials like that. We also know that people use it in their local economy. Taking it back will do untold damage to people communities. It is the last thing that people who are already struggling to make ends meet need. The Tories would have us believe that there is a choice between encouraging people to work and maintaining the £20 uplift, but that argument is not credible. The argument that it is removing the uplift because it wants to raise living standards through work does not stand up. Universal credit for all its faults of which there are many. Today's motion highlights just some. It is built to make it easier for those claiming it to get into and stay in work. Taking £20 out of people's pockets now will leave many without the very means that they need to get to work. In fact, the trust and trust have found that one in five people are unlikely to be able to travel to work or essential appointments because they will not have the money to do so. Further more, Deputy Presiding Officer, the notion that there are swathes of well-paid, secure and unionised jobs with enough hours to get by just waiting for people to swoop into does not hold up. We are supporting the Government's motion today because it is right and necessary that we all stand together to call out this callous decision and the damage that it will do to families across Scotland. However, I want to make both Governments clear. I want to be clear to both Governments. We need more than words. We need deeds too. It is imperative that the Scottish Government use the maximum available resources that it has to address poverty and inequality. I also want them to take real and bold action to end poverty and inequality. For example, as it stands, 4,000 families are set to lose out on the Scottish child payment when the removal of the £20 uplift kicks in. The Scottish Government has the power to prevent those people from having their pockets hit twice, so I make the plea across to those benches to bring certainty for those families today. Deputy Presiding Officer, the truth is that, for far too long, Scotland has been failed twice over by a callous Tory Government and by a Scottish Government, which is preferring at times to sit on its hand or point fingers and place the blame. Right now, when it matters the most, the Scottish Government is not using the powers or the money available to it to take the bold and ambitious action that is needed to tackle the stark poverty and inequality here. On the watch of both of them, poverty has been climbing. If that does not stop, not only will we fail future generations, but they will undo the progress that has been made under previous Labour Governments, especially on child poverty. We must recognise that, whilst that cut will be a catastrophe, the prospect of it did not exist when this Parliament unanimously set child poverty targets, and we must meet them, no caveats. So, while I understand alongside the Government today and I stand alongside the Government today and call out together this cruel and damaging cut, I also hold fast to my commitment to push both Governments to go harder and faster on poverty right now. Scottish Labour, alongside the third sector and faith leaders from across Scotland, have called on and will continue to call on the Scottish Government to double the Scottish child payment immediately and again in a year. It has refused so far. I say to the Scottish Government today that, while it is absolutely right and we must call out the UK Government actions, please also recognise that you too can act. Deputy Presiding Officer, we on these benches will not allow either Government to fail our people and to fail to meet this moment and step up. That is why we will continue to put forward bold ideas. The SNP Government talk is a good talk of human rights game, but the evidence shows, and I have heard in committee this morning that they have not walked it yet. They do not put their money where their mouth is. People were struggling before the pandemic, and the pandemic has made it worse. They are struggling even more now. They need action. We must stand here and strong against all policies that push people into poverty. We must shout loud about how cruel and callous the Tory Government cut is, but we must do more than that too. We must also use the powers of this Parliament in the way in which it was intended, so that we can make policy decisions and transform people's lives. The Tories must cancel the cut, and the SNP must prove that they too will do what it takes to end poverty and inequality—indeed, not words. With the stakes higher than ever, it is imperative that we use every possible lever that we have, and none of us here should rest until we do. I remind members who participate in the debate to press the request to speak buttons, and if you make an intervention and plan to speak later in the debate, you will have to repress your button. I call Willie Rennie for around four minutes. Andrew Bowie, 3,620, David Mundell, 6,050, David Dugud, 6,280, John Lamont, 7,150, Alistair Jack, 8,190, and Douglas Ross, 6,110. The number of families in their constituency that will be directly impacted by the cuts to universal credit. They can stand by and watch that happen to their constituents, or they can stand up for their constituents now and make their voice heard, but more importantly, their vote count against this cut. That is what it means. It could mean a £1,040 cut to their income. It could mean 22,000 plunged into poverty across the UK, according to the child poverty action group. That is not a treat. That is a necessity for families. Their costs continue to rise. Their costs have not gone down just because potentially the impact of the virus is waning. Their costs are going up. At that time, they need more support, not less. The Trussell Trust is right that it could force 82,000 people in Scotland alone to use food banks for one in four to skip a meal, to one in five to enable to heat their home, to one in five again to be unable to go to work. That is especially ironic, because, apparently, the design of the cut is to get people into work. If they cannot get a work, they are not going to earn any more money than they are just now. The Conservatives seem to think that they are concerned about the cost of the £20 cut to the overall exchequer, but they have also said that work is the best route out of poverty. If they had any confidence in their multi-billion-pound work plan, they would not be a universal credit. If all those people were into better-paid work, they would not be a demand on universal credit, so their plan does not work. The Royal College of Pediatric and Child Health was very clear that there is a link between poverty and poor child health outcomes. At the other end of the age scale, Age Scotland concerned about 106,301 people, more than 50 who are dependent on universal credit. That affects all ranges of the age. It is important that we recognise that it is also impacting on those who are at the front line of the pandemic, those who are cleaners, carers, hairdressers, shop workers and all those people who stood up and defended us when we need people out to go out and do their job. However, that Government does not recognise the necessity of support for those people. However, I do hope that the Scottish Government responds to Pam Duncan-Glancy's point about the eligibility criteria, because the minister did not respond specifically to that point. If there are 4,000 families that are going to lose out on the child payment as a result of the changing eligibility criteria, the Scottish Government does need to step up and make that difference, because it is important that those families do not lose out here in Scotland as a result. I am hoping that this Parliament comes together, that the Conservatives on the Benches Opposite recognise the errors of that policy, that they stand up if nothing else for all those constituents in their constituencies that I mentioned earlier. They should stand up, make their voice heard and show that they care. Thank you very much. Mr Rennie, we now move to the open debate. We still have a little time in hand, but I would encourage anybody making an intervention to do so as briefly as possible. I call Neil Gray, who will be followed by Sharon Dowey. Mr Gray, four minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. How on earth are we here at this 11th hour still debating whether the UK Government should keep a lifeline in place or, within days, take the single biggest cut to social security since the Second World War and take this form of social security support to its lowest level in 30 years? It is to their credit that the UK Government recognised at the start of the pandemic that universal credit was not paid at a level to live on, and they needed to provide that uplift to avoid social and economic catastrophe. It is little wonder that universal credit is a shadow of what was initially proposed and has been a cash cow for the austerity cuts that were made out first by the Lib Dem Tory Coalition and then even more brutally by the majority Tory Government. In all, £37 billion has been removed from social security and by extension from our constituencies by UK Government social security cuts since 2010. If I can get some time back. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I thank my member for taking me into mention. The cabinet secretary said that it is a political choice. You have a choice on Thursday to help carers to have certainty for 2025. Will you be voting for my amendment on Thursday morning? To Governments, one Government that is investing in giving carers additional support that is not available to carers elsewhere in the UK and the Government that is cutting social security. It is very clear about where the question is. Mr Kerr, enough sedentary interventions, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The £20 per week uplift that we know has made such a difference to people over the last year hasn't even made up for all the cuts that I have described, which just goes to show the scale of what has gone before. According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, even with the uplift in place, families unable to find work are getting £1,600 less per year than they would have done in 2011. Families with children are even worse off receiving around £3,000 less than 10 years ago. At the start of the pandemic, there was a recognition that circumstances out with their control were going to impact on low-income households in receipt of universal credit. For those of us living in the real world, we can see a similar storm coming for people on low-income households. Analysis by the Resolution Foundation shows that four in 10 households on universal credit will see a 13 per cent rise in their energy bills at the same time as the universal credit support is cut by £20 per week. Then, with the Brexit-induced HGV crisis continuing to thunder on, food prices are set to rise by 5 per cent in the run-up to Christmas. Inflation is rising at a record rate, slapping more cost on household budgets, and then the UK Government wants to hit them again with a national insurance tax rise. UK Government policies are hiking costs, and UK Government policies are cutting incomes. How many more hours will the care worker, the delivery driver, the cleaner and the shop worker need to find to make up for this cut? Analysis by the IPPR shows that a lone parent working 48 hours a week cannot reach a living income unless they are paid more than the real living wage. They are our key workers. The Tories were lauding them during the pandemic. Now, the Tories are hammering them with cuts to their incomes, forcing them into in-work poverty and to food banks. What are those who are not even supposed to find work meant to do? Miles Briggs and the UK Government have refused to answer that question. They are already struggling with a long-term illness or a disability. They have no means to increase their income through work. They will not benefit from the so-called UK jobs plan and have suffered the lion's share of £37 billion in cuts. If they have a disability, they are already more likely to be in poverty. Now, the UK Government will be forcing them deeper below the poverty line. The Tory amendment does not even stand up to scrutiny from one of its own. The former DWP Secretary of State, Stephen Crabb, gave a very commendable speech in the House of Commons a couple of weeks ago. He admitted making a big mistake when he was Secretary of State. That mistake is one that the Scottish Tories want to repeat with their amendment. That mistake was to believe that by cutting social security, you could increase engagement with the employment market. Instead, you increase in work poverty, increase destitution and mental health problems, and that becomes a vicious circle. When they can choose not to, why is the UK Government choosing to put our fellow citizens through this unbearable hardship? That cut is going to strip support from 10,500 of my constituents in urgent shots. It is going to impoverish 60,000 people in Scotland and 20,000 children. It is immoral, economic madness and, if it is not stopped next week, the campaign to see it reinstated starts now. The £20 uplift to universal credit was just one part of a £9 billion package of social security spending introduced by the UK Government to protect the most vulnerable in our society from the worst of the pandemic. When that was first announced by the chancellor in March 2020, it immediately provided financial relief to families affected by the pandemic, sitting alongside other measures such as the up-rate and child benefit, guardians allowance and thresholds, as well as a £500 win-off payment for recipients of working tax credits. The DWP does not often receive praise, but it is worth noting that they have really risen to the challenge during the pandemic. An independent review of the UK Government's temporary Covid measures by the Social Security Advisory Committee noted that the rapid response on a huge scale by the DWP to support social security and tax credit claimants during the pandemic has been very successful, adding that the universal credit system performed remarkably well under pressure, with a number of critical successes such as rapidly adapting the claim process, suspending conditionality and speeding up payments. However, we cannot escape the fact that the £20 uplift to universal credit, which has already been extended for six months, has always been a temporary measure. As the economy reawakens, the focus for any Government should be to get the country back to work. It is a challenge facing all Administrations across the UK, but it is the UK Government leading the way with our plan for jobs. The kickstart scheme is just one prong of the strategy, with £2 billion invested and over 63,000 young people now in kickstart jobs. Over 2,500 young people start a kickstart job each week, a remarkable number. As a result, I think that it is only right that my colleague Miles Briggs has included kickstart in his amendment. It is a great programme and it deserves more recognition from members in this chamber. No, I gave way last week. I want to make progress today. Then there is the £2.9 billion restart scheme, providing support worth around £2,000 to over 1 million long-term unemployed people in universal credit, the doubling of the number of work coaches to £27,000, the £2.3 billion invested in recruiting them, the £1.6 million people who have moved from unemployment into works in April 2020, the £200 million put into the job entry targeted support scheme, which has supported nearly 6,000 people in Scotland, the £140 discount on energy bills for the million people in receipt of pension credit or the boosting of the national living wage to £8.91. To conclude, it is easy for the SNP to point the finger of blame when it comes to social security, even if its own system is far from perfect. However, to say, as many in the Opposition benches do, that the UK Government has not been doing enough to support those who need it most is just not true. The decision was not one that was taken lightly by the UK Government. Those decisions never are. As I have just outlined, the UK Government and the DWP have gone above and beyond in standing up for the most vulnerable in our society. I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate about the need to cancel the Westminster Government's plan to cut universal credit and the working tax credit by £20 a week. Although I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate, I am astounded about the need for it. What rational Government who has the true interests of the people at his heart would ever think that it is such a difficult time that cutting this lifeline to many would be a good idea? It lacks compassion, it is cruel and it will literally take the food out of people's mouths. It will mean that many families will be unable to heat their homes at a time when energy costs are spiralling out of control. I hope that this debate and the pressures from everywhere else will make this heartless Tory Government see sense and end their plan to make this cut. We have certainly got one thing from the need for this debate. It tells the people of Scotland everything that they need to know about the Tories. As a member of the social justice and social security committee, I can assure Parliament that we are extremely concerned about this cut and we have taken a united four-nation approach with other social security committees to call for its reversal. We have also heard as a committee from the child poverty action group that the cut will put over 20,000 people into poverty. We know that most people on universal credit are either working or unfit to work or have caring responsibilities. The Westminster Government's attempt to minimise the likely impact of the removal of the £20 uplift has been found to be disingenuous and inaccurate. Theresa Coffey, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, has even suggested that taking it on an extra couple of hours' work will fully mitigate the cut. That, of course, is not true in a shameful attempt to spin away the misery and hurt that Tories will inflict on our families. Bill Scott, the chair of the Poverty and Inequality Committee, has pointed out in evidence to our committee that a person on the minimum wage would have to work an extra nine hours because of the clawback system in universal credit. That, of course, assumes that work is available and that the employee can take on such work. Instead of the misleading rhetoric, and there is more from the Tory amendment today, what we need to hear instead is an announcement to the Tories that this cut will not go ahead, that families will not have to face the impossible choices that will inflict devastating hardship at such a difficult time. We heard last week in this very chamber that the Tories are lobbying to have the plan cut reversed. Lobbyn, and we see from the amendment that this is just more rhetoric to get them out of a tough corner. Well, I can advise them that we won't let them off the hook so lightly. This cut is a Tory cut, and if it goes ahead it will hang around your neck for years to come. And whilst they're lobbying, they should lobby about everything that's wrong, about universal credit, everything that shows their lack of compassion and concern, the five-week wait that forces families to choose between waiting for a payment or going immediately into debt, the two-child policy and its despicable rape clause, and the removal of the disability premiums that exist in legacy benefits, the sanction regime that penalises many, and that's just to name a few, and they can lobby about the benefit cap that saw those impacted during the pandemic increased by 115%. Most of those families have children and the benefit cap means that many didn't even see a penny of that £20 a flip. In conclusion, it's tragic that we even need to have such a debate in Parliament, and it's astounding that at a time when such a perfect storm is heading away to many in Scotland that we have a Westminster Government even contemplating a cut. As a Parliament, we must unite to provide the loudest possible voice that urges the Tories to think again. Forcing families to choose between heating and eating is an absolute disgrace, and they must reverse that cruel plan that will inflict dreadful hardship in many of our constituents. I thank you, Ms McNeill. I now call on Alex Rowley, who will be followed by Elena Whitham. I rise to speak in favour of the Government motion today and to reject the amendment from the Scottish Conservatives, which ignores the damage and cut to people's income, ignores the consequences on the lives of men, women and children if the cut goes ahead and is completely out of touch with mainstream thinking on this issue across Scotland, indeed across the whole of the UK. The Scottish Conservatives are also out of touch with six previous Conservative working pension secretaries, who have all written to the chancellor urging him to drop the proposal because of the damage that it will do to people, to children. The former Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, said this week, in a quote, that, at this point, the Government's plan 20 pound a weak cut to universal credit in October seems more economically illogical, socially divisive and morally indefensible than anything I have witnessed in this country's politics. Against that backdrop, we have the Scottish Conservative Party come to Scotland's Parliament today and defend a proposal from a Westminster Government that is going to do serious economic and social damage to thousands of men, women and children up and down Scotland. Gordon Brown went on to say, austerity has been the theme of the past decade, but this cut is vindictive even beyond austerity. It comes 11 weeks before Christmas and it is being coldly and inhumanely executed in spite of the new evidence, mountain month by month of worsening hardship and continuing crisis. He concluded, I have never seen a Government art so callously and with so little concern for the consequences of their actions on the poorest in our society. That is what this Conservative Party in here today is defending. It is estimated that in Scotland over 220,000 households with children will have their income cut. Those cuts start as we lead into Christmas, as fuel bills, gas, electricity bills rise, the cost of food is on the rise, not to mention the on-going problems with fighting a global pandemic. All of that at a time when the Conservatives try to con the people with talk of levelling up. Instead of levelling up, as they claim, they are doubling down on a losing formula that makes no economic sense whatsoever. If they wanted to start balancing the books, they could, for example, look to what Labour did in 1997 and initiate a one-time windfall tax. They could easily raise £6 billion by imposing a tax on those who have made the greatest speculative gains from the pandemic. There is a mass of evidence to show that this would be a reasonable thing to do. Instead, they have decided that the most vulnerable will pay the price. That has to be the key point of this debate today. This is about political choices in difficult times. You can choose to share the burden. You can choose to ask those who are the most able within our society to take a heavier share of the burden. I am going to have to ask you to wind up now, Mr Riley. Or you can, as the Scottish Conservatives have proposed, decide that the lowest paid, that those on the lowest incomes and those who have the least ability to make those payments make that cut. That cannot be right, and surely, even at this stage, this Parliament could unite to say, do not go ahead with us, stop this, think again and do what is right for the people of Scotland. Thank you, Mr Riley. I call on Eleanor Whitham to be followed by Jeremy Balfour. Four minutes, please, Ms Whitham. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As someone who previously relied on working tax credits to help feed and clothe my child despite being in work, the thought of suddenly losing £20 per week and then any potential passported assistance fills me with the fear. That fear will be striking at the hearts of thousands of my constituents across Carrick, Cymru, Cymru and Dyn Valley, and there will be many folk lying awake at night trying to figure out where they are going to make cuts to the family budget. I make no mistake, Presiding Officer. I am not talking about putting a bottle of wine back on the shelf. I am talking about being in work and deciding if your child can get new shoes or trousers as they have kicked the toes out of their trainers and their jeans are half-mast. Deciding if you can turn the heating on this as winter starts to bite, or if you can buy fresh food, or will it be, let's see what I can make this week from the tin food from the food bank. I can remember having to save to afford the £1 for the toddlers group, and it breaks my heart to think of other parents having to make that awful decision that they cannot afford the luxury of a toddlers group that will provide social opportunities for both them and their we-in. The mental well-being impact will be felt severely. Before I go any further, I want to put it on record that years of savage cuts to social security by successive UK Tory councillors—some of them know how I'm now changing their minds about it—actually shows us that universal credit was never enough even before the pandemic struck and by removing the much-needed and welcome lifeline as we head into a winter be set with increased costs to fuel and food, looming increases to national insurance and the end of furlough is absolutely catastrophic. That's the words of their own internal advisers. Add to this the bedroom tax, the child cap, the abhorrent rape clause and it almost feels as if to be poorest to be punished. Please remember that 45 per cent of universal credit claimants don't even receive their full entitlement because they're paying back a never-ending cycle of debt at source. As a former women's aid worker, I want to focus on some key figures. Women are over-represented in low-paid, precarious work with zero-hours contracts. Research by think tank autonomy found that in the UK, some 98 per cent of workers who take home poverty wages in high coronavirus exposure jobs are women. According to Save the Children, more than two thirds of the families that they have helped with emergency grants in the last 16 months were one-parent families, 96 per cent of whom were single mums and two-thirds of those families were on in receipt of universal credit. We've heard it already, but according to the estimates, withdrawing the uplift is going to move about 60,000 people into poverty, including 20,000 children, and it's going to reduce spending on universal credit and tax credits in Scotland by £460 million by 2023. That's £460 million that will not circulate in our local economies because make no mistake, that money goes out as fast as it comes in. Many of those mums who are going to face this cut next week will also be wearing themselves sick with fear of having their children taken off them. This is a very real worry that many charities hear from women who fear that their inability to feed and clothe their children will result in social work intervention. To finish, I want to discuss the very real fact that approximately 40 per cent of universal credit recipients are in work. I am sure that I was not the only one who could not believe my ears last week when South of Scotland Conservative MSP Sharon Dowey implied that the cut universal credit is going to be the best way to get people back into work. She repeated that today. Her colleague Alexander Stewart, however, assured that she is doing all that she can to lobby her Westminster counterparts to keep the lifeline. So which is it? Scotland's watching. Thank you, Ms Whitham. I now call Jeremy Balfour, who will be followed by Maggie Chapman. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Scotland has two parliaments. The model of devolution works because it is generally understood that some issues that are better served when we are addressed at the local level. However, after 14 years of this SNP Government in power, that theory has been harshly tested and found in need of amendment. It remains true that some issues are indeed better dealt with on a more local level, but only if it is in an SNP administration that is presiding over that level. As I have mentioned, we have 14 years into this Government and it is fair to say that the record makes grim reading. It is so grim, in fact, that it raises the question of how they found themselves in any place to throw stones at Westminster. Perhaps we should spend less time throwing stones and more on self-reflection, and we would have a different story. To that point, Presiding Officer, it is clear to say at least one of the contributing factors to this woeful record that it is perfectly evident that, on this topic of this motion, the Government is far more interested in fixing and talking about the powers reserved to Westminster than taking full control of the powers for this Parliament. Even when we take a brief break from slagging off Westminster and try to execute the powers in their hands, they are woeful and inadequate. Back in 2016, Social Security powers were devolved to this Parliament after many years of promises and more devolved power was all that was standing between the nationalists and the perfect Scotland. However, the Government had to learn a harsh lesson, but it takes more than just catchy slogans and empty promises to affect the Government to govern a country. We even had to hand back control of the severe disarmament allowance to DWP because it could not handle it and it could not roll it out in the time of the promise, nor I won't. In fact, they say that it won't be until 2025 before we finally take full control of these devolved powers. Quite frankly, the SNP is full of glass houses and they shouldn't be thrown stones in it. Presiding Officer, the reality is that effective governance requires not only empty promises to shake the magic money tree and pay for everything and anything without consequences. After thought for consideration, we should perhaps take a look at the scheme. Perhaps it was extended and could have been extended longer, but I fully support the UK Government in its pursuit of fiscal responsibility and the future of this country that is crippled without the latest debt, left to us mostly by the former Labour Government. I look forward to the SNP colleagues voting for my amendment on Thursday morning, where we will make sure that people are protected from it. To finish, Presiding Officer, I would again like to stress the irony of the fact that the SNP Government has brought forward this motion in the wake of its 13 years in power. All that is left is over-promising and under-delivering. Poverty is up, the attainment gap is lower, drug deaths are out of control and we can't even take control of the devolved social security powers that we told us we needed to fix all those problems. However, the reality is that even more powers are devolved to them, they will execute them as woefully as they have done with every other power that they have. To finish, to quote the late great President Ronald Reagan, the 10 most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the SNP Government and I'm here to help. Thank you, Mr Balfock. I remind members that it is up to members whether or not they take an intervention. Maggie Chapman will be followed by Bob Doris. Ms Chapman, four minutes please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. The social security system is the sign and signal of our responsibility to one another. It should be there to help us when we need it most, to support all of us to live well with dignity in a society that cares. But for too long, UK Governments have undermined our social security system not only by cutting support but also by consistently misleading the public about benefit recipients. This £20 cut to universal credit that we debate today is one of the biggest social security cuts ever made in British history. Not only that, it is the latest in a long line of cuts that have torn more and more holes in our social security safety net, hitting poorest families hardest. The benefit freeze, which reduced incomes as costs were rising, cut in around 6 per cent of overall income. The abhorrent to child limit, which has removed about £2,900 from 18,000 Scottish households. The benefit cap that prevents thousands of Scots getting the benefits that they should have. The £20 increase was a welcome reprieve from some of these cuts. Indeed, the Institute for Fiscal Studies describes it as the first significant real-terms increase in entitlements for out-of-work people without children in half a century, despite the fact that earnings have doubled in that time. The fact that the £20 increase was needed could not be a clearer admission that our social security system had finally been fatally weakened long before the pandemic came along. It was not an act of benevolence but an admission or failure, an admission that the system had been so damaged by cuts that it was no longer able to perform its basic function to provide adequate support for people needing help with their incomes for reasons beyond their control. The Conservative amendment before us today, which we cannot support, displays a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of universal credit. The motion focuses heavily on the importance of work, and the DWP has argued that the cut will act as work incentive. However, universal credit is not exclusively an unemployment payment. Many millions of people are either working or have been assessed as being not required to work. Like the bedroom tax, which tries to force people to move into smaller properties that simply do not exist, forcing the cut on people who cannot work or have forced them to work more is simply inhumane. The cut is not a work incentive if it means that people can no longer afford to get public transport to work or if they become ill because they cannot eat well enough. If the cut goes ahead, it will put as much as £460 million out of the economy. It will pull that money out rather than seeing this money spent on our high streets supporting local jobs. It will mean people skipping meals, facing the choice between heating and eating. Independent analysis from SPICE suggests that withdrawing the uplift would move more than 50,000 people, including over 10,000 children, into relative poverty when we know poverty is already unacceptably high. The retrogressive cut is symbolic of a UK Government that knows the price of some things but the value of nothing—a cut that will temporarily save it a few billion a year, but the ripple effects of poverty and the associated societal costs will reach far into the future, adding burdens on future generations. It reflects the stark difference between the UK Government's coercive approach to welfare and the human rights-based approach that we are trying to build here. It is symbolic of a Government that plows on with its plans, no matter the evidence presented, that it is going to actively harm our society's poorest people. We cannot support that. With additional powers, we could do so much more, but for now we want this lifeline retained. Thank you, Ms Chapman. I now call on Bob Doris, who will be followed by Carl Mocken. Mr Doris, a tight four minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Way before Covid-19 hit, unfortunately turning to food banks was a reality for far too many across all of Scotland's communities. There were, of course, multiple reasons for that, not least of all the five-week wait to receive universal credit and the DWP sanctions regime. However, perhaps the major reason for people struggling on universal credit previously has been the UK benefits freeze. Sitton's advice stated that, as a result of the benefits freeze between 2016 and 2019, universal credit has fallen in value over a tenth by 11.5 per cent behind inflation. As MSPs, we have witnessed the impact of benefits being too low over many years. The 20-pound uplift to universal credit and to tax credits is the only year that universal credit has risen above inflation rates since it was introduced eight years ago. When the uplift is removed, monthly standard UC allowance rates will drop by between 14 and 25 per cent. Those cuts will push 60,000 people, including 20,000 children, into poverty in Scotland. Cuts that, by 2023-24, could have taken £460 million a year from the pockets of those who rely on social security the most in our country. Sitton's advice found that 74 per cent of people said that if the benefit is reduced by £20 a week, they would not be able to cope. The Trussell Trust's 2021 state of hunger report also revealed that over two-fifths of households referred to food banks last year were in receipt of universal credit. That is with the current 20-pound uplift before a penny is taken off those households. The evidence is overwhelming. It is not a finely balanced judgment, but overwhelming. Over 63,000 households in Glasgow who rely on universal credit and over 400 households in Scotland need the UK Government to listen and to act, and they also need the support of the Scottish Conservatives. Sitton's advice found that removing the £20 a week increase will result in 58 per cent of those complex cab debt clients being unable to meet their living costs 58 per cent. However, though, it is the next comment that I would like Scottish Conservatives to listen to closely, because it also found that the £20 a week uplift, as it currently is, has so far reduced the number of cab complex debt clients unable to meet their living costs by more than a third, by 38 per cent. That is a really positive statistic. The £20 increase has been a success, maybe not as far as I would like it to go, but it has been a success. It was the right thing to do. So is retaining it. I have believed for some time that the motivation for the £20 a week increase was to sanitise a creaking UK universal credit system for the many people who have never been involved in the benefit system before and who would have been shocked at the low level of benefits once they are on it. The UK Government moved swiftly to shore up that creaking system by introducing the £20 supplement. Now, the Conservatives hope that many of those workers, perhaps, moving off of universal credit, that that £20 lifeline can now be removed. If it is the right thing to do to support those who are newly accessing universal credit, it is surely the right thing to do for those who continue to require that support for the longer term, including those with additional vulnerabilities, be it those with lone parents or those with disabilities and many others. Three Conservative speakers mentioned work coaches in the doubling of those. The PCS union that represents work coaches said that the £20 weekly uplift in universal credit payments has meant that claimants are better able to engage in job seeking rather than having continuous worries about money. Work coaches support that uplift. It will help people back into work. That is just the right thing to do. I know that there are people in the Conservative benches who agree with me and they agree with almost every word within my speech. Do the right thing. There are people in those benches. Alexander Stewart and others show a backbone, show principle and defend our constituents again. I thank you very much indeed. I call Carol Mocken, who will be followed by the final speaker in the open debate at Marodic. A tight four minutes again, Ms Mocken. On the subject of universal credit, I am fully in agreement with Opposition parties across the United Kingdom, as well as Governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, alongside many councils that see the effects of those decisions on daily basis. That cut is blatant vandalism and will ruin lives. It is as simple as that and it does not even make any sort of economic sense, given that it will result in the Scottish economy losing over half a billion pounds a year, but that is far from my mind at this moment in time. It will not ruin the lives of the wealthy, of course, nor the lives of hundreds of Tory MPs who waved it through, but the lives of the worst off in our society. An ignored and belittled group who are repeatedly booted back down the ladder the minute they get their foot on the rung. When the so-called uplift ends in October, it will be one of the most blatant examples of punishing the poor to pay for the mistakes of the rich that we have seen in this country for quite some time. The reality is that in a sensible country, the meager increase of £20 during an unprecedented health crisis would simply be seen as necessary and sensible. In many countries, the level of benefits available to people in need were significantly higher to begin with. The uplift was simply rectifying a small portion of years of stripping away benefits in order to appear to be tough, while it is not tough to push people to the brink as a tragedy. We speak about being a compassionate country, a society-built and shared values of community and fairness, but that is all just for show if you attack those least able to get by at every turn. I know that Tory colleagues will say as they often do that what I am saying is evident of anti-Tory mindset. Well, let me be honest, I am anti-Tory and I think that Boris Johnson is destroying not only my own region in south of Scotland but the entire UK with decisions like that. I think that the decisions will correctly be seen by the electorate as cruel. When you see so many people loving hand-to-mouth, how can you stand by a decision like this? It is not what we would like to do and it will damage families and communities for years to come. Decisions of this nature help to ingrain poverty and push communities that have been suffering for decades into a spiral of poor conditions and decreased wealth that few ever escaped from. There are no trickle-down effects in places such as Cormarnock, Tobolton and Cachon. There is just a hard, cold reality of an economy that does not work for the many. The £20 uplift gives a small respite from that and now we are having to tell people that it will go. It is shameful. I believe that Scotland should advocate for a floor under which we will not let people fall. One part of that is adequate benefits, but it is far from the only part. The economic fallout from Covid has been worsened by years of deregulation, moving the ownership of wealth in assets overseas and a complete disregard for any kind of just taxation that will address any historic inequality. In that grand scheme, the £20 uplift seems like a small symptom of a much larger plan to engineer a society for the rich at the expense of everyone else. I think that we should view it as precisely that. If you believe that a single parent who lost their job due to Covid should be punished whilst a hedge fund manager with 10 properties in five different countries should flourish, then you are articulating a set of political priorities that I find truly abhorrent. I think that history will look upon your decision as disgraceful. It is not too late, however, to put your name to the opposition of these plans and do the right thing. That is all we are asking. Do the right thing. You have to wind up now, Ms Mocken. I am going to have to ask you to close. My last point is that I hope that the Scottish Government will step in and when we can will mitigate these things because that is also the right thing to do. Thank you, Ms Mocken. I now call on Emma Roddick, who is the final speaker in the open debate. Tight four minutes, please, Ms Roddick. Just two weeks ago, the Conservatives intervened on my speech on homelessness to insist that the Scottish Government raised the Scottish child payment, which is a benefit linked to universal credit, by £10 a week. Here they are today, and they are insisting on backing a move down south, which will remove £20 a week from those same universal credit claims. How can we fight child poverty in Scotland when every increase, every doubling of the Scottish child payment ends up being sucked in to the growing black hole of yet more Tory cuts? Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and thank you to the member for taking the intervention. Would you also accept, though, that when we set the child poverty targets in this Parliament, there was no such thing as the £20 uplift, so we set them without caveat and on the basis that we would meet them anyway, and that raising it to £20 won't be enough? Yes, absolutely. I take the member's point, and certainly I'm not against doubling the Scottish child payment in any sense. I'm just concerned that, as it comes straight after this cut, that it will have less of an effect. The introduction of this uplift was a recognition in a time of national crisis that people did not have enough money to buy essentials, and we all know that that is still true today. We know that the removal of this uplift could plunge tens of thousands of Scottish people, including around 20,000 children, into poverty. There's just no justification for that. Even within the Conservative amendment, it claimed that the justification for removing the uplift, which was extended to cover the last six months, is that employment has risen for the last six months, so essentially this intervention is working and lifting people out of poverty, so we should remove it. The callous attitude of the Conservatives today in backing a move to take £20 out of the pockets of those who have been hardest hit the last two years is bad enough in itself, but claiming it as some righteous work incentive is horrific. The Trussell Trust had sent MSPs some very interesting and harrowing information yesterday ahead of this debate, and their data shows that one in five on universal credit say that this cut would prevent them from travelling to work. One in five would struggle to heat their homes over winter, and one in four, that's 115,000 people, are likely to have to skip meals. The Tories are using poverty as a punishment for not working hard enough and ignoring the fact that many in this country cannot work or are working and still not earning enough to live on because the UK Government is still dragging its heels on employment rights. More than a third of universal credit claimants are in work and still below the very low threshold that the Conservatives consider to be worth supporting. I personally find the best complete lack of consideration for and at worst active and conscious endangerment of disabled people absolutely disgusting. Disabled people on universal credit are 50 per cent more likely to skip meals to get by. I am proud that this Parliament is becoming more diverse and I hope that that will lead to better recognition of the issues facing disabled people, but that amendment today does not fill me with a lot of hope for the Tory colleagues over there. Making the biggest overnight cut to social security in my and most people here's lifetimes when fuel and other living costs are rising and we are recovering from a pandemic is as ridiculous as it is morally reprehensible. The Highland Poverty Action Network today described it as a disaster for those most in need who they serve and wondered if there could be a worse time to do this. The Tories can stand up in this place and defend taking £20 out of the weekly budget of nearly a quarter of a million families with children, while also demanding that the Scottish Government give those same families an extra tenor, but they cannot do it with any integrity. Thank you. We now move to winding up speeches and I call on Michael Marra up to six minutes. This illogical and cruel cut to universal credit should not be taking place. Listening today to the Conservatives, it is clear, just as it is clear listening to back bench Conservatives and Westminster, is that they have absolutely no idea why this is happening. I think to hear Shona Robison quoting the Lligatum Institute is illustrative that that is the Lligatum Institute, which is run by a very right wing Tory peer, registered in a tax haven, advocates of a hard Brexit and funded by the spoils of Russian chaos in the 1990s. I have doubts that those people really care about the poor in Scotland and across the UK, yet they are aghast that their treasured Tory Government is doing this because they believe that there will be significant electoral cost to the Tories as a result of what they are proposing to do in a matter of days. If even they think that it is a bad idea, perhaps Conservative colleagues opposite might want to think again, because that is politically incomprehensible. It is economically illiterate, ffiscally incredible and morally unconscionable. To take this action now assumes that the crisis is over. When we know that this crisis in our schools, our shops, our factories, our streets and around our kitchen tables is only just begun and it will run for years to come, Miles Briggs must accept that we are only seeing the start of the pandemic. We must not equivocate. We know the consequences of this cut, as so many members have spoken eloquently about in the past hour. We know the pain that it will bring. Let us not pretend that any person thrown deeper into poverty by this cut cares whether any extra pound in their purse comes bashed with a salt tyre or with a union jack. Putting food on your table, being able to switch the heating on and putting clothes on your child's back is what matters. A single mother from Dundee says, it's already a struggle for me even with the uplift. I'm a single mum of two and even with the uplift I've gone weeks with nothing. If they take this money away, I'll be down an even bigger hole. I don't have two quid to my name. She is one of 18,000 Dondonians who will be impacted. 18,000. The UN's special rapporteur on poverty has said, for these people, £20 a week makes a huge difference and could be the difference between falling into extreme poverty or remaining just above the poverty line. If the question is one of fiscal consolidation to maintain the public deficit within acceptable levels, then you should raise revenues, not cut down on welfare at the expense of people in poverty. Far too often we end up here talking about mitigating harms, propping people up rather than enabling them to lift themselves free. We need an economy that works, that raises wages and provides jobs. Pam Duncan Glancy is right to describe benefits as enabling the pathway into work. However, there is a failure in this Government over 14 years to do just that, to build the economy that we need. We are far weaker as a country, as a community than we should be. With this cut, increases to national insurance and rocketing energy bills, low-income families are heading to an unprecedented cost of living crisis. No wonder UK Government ministers are briefing that this is going to be a difficult winter. The list of people and organisations who are squarely against this cut to universal credit is quite extraordinary. They include children's rights organisations, anti-poverty campaigners, every single opposition party and even six previous Tory DWP ministers, as highlighted by Alec Rowley. Neil Gray stood alongside Stephen Crab rightly to argue that this cut makes employment less likely. Willie Rennie made the most salient point to Tory colleagues when he said that he asked the Tories to have confidence in their own jobs plan that we have heard about today, to reduce the claimant count and to save money by getting people into work. While this callous cut is squarely the responsibility of the UK Government, we must also consider our responsibilities within this Parliament. If that is overall a moral question, then that moral quandary lies here, too. The analysis of the child poverty action group is that the Scottish Government also has an obligation to progress the realisation of rights in Scotland and a statutory requirement to meet its own child poverty targets. Pan-Dunk and Glancy has taught time and again the fact that those targets were set prior to this £20 uplift ever being placed, pre-pandemic, pre-uplift, and they are set to be missed and by some considerable distance unless urgent action is taken and we would ask the Government to do just that. We have a child poverty figure pre-pandemic of almost 30 per cent. The immediate doubling of the child payment is a moral imperative, as is doubling it again. Introducing a £40 per week payment would cut child poverty by a third in one action. The question remains that in this year, of all years, when this Parliament and this Government have more resources at its disposal than it has ever done before, if we cannot mitigate child poverty now, if we cannot put money into pockets now, then when will it be done? Every day that this passes is a moral affront. All we can now hope is that this UK Government recognises the extraordinary folly of the course on which they are set. In a matter of days, families will make wake to much-deepened hardship. We are confronted by the fierce urgency of now. Presiding Officer, for those who need all of our help, such a thing is too late. I call on Alexander Stewart up to seven minutes, Mr Stewart. I am happy to close the debate this afternoon on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. However, I am not at all surprised to see that the Scottish National Party Government has chosen to use Government time to debate a matter that is entirely outwith the control of this Parliament. It was only last week that the Scottish Government was proudly reminding this chamber of how Social Security in Scotland now delivers 11 benefits, seven of which are new. And yet, instead of spending this afternoon scrutinising this Government's delivery of these devolved benefits, we are debating the actions of a different Government that is accountable to a different Parliament. However, no, I have a lot to cover. Thank you. However, I want to take issue with the narrative that we have heard this afternoon, Presiding Officer, that universal credit has been a total failure and it is more a stick to beat the UK Government with, because this is far from the truth. Universal credit has had the opportunity to ensure that people simply match the reality. Universal credit has vastly a superior to replace what was already there, and many, many work coaches will tell you exactly that. Presiding Officer, no longer are people saddled with the benefit system that would make claimants poorer for choosing to take on more work. No longer were claimants faced with the confusing patchwork quilt of different benefits to be paid. It is the simplicity of the benefit system that universal credit provides, as well as the tapered system of gradually decreasing payments for claimants being more. That has to be taken into account. Those are both factors that have helped employment rise to record levels in the months leading up to the pandemic. It is precisely for those issues that people enter work and have ensured no thank you. I have no doubt that universal credit, along with the new schemes such as Kickstart and the young persons guarantee, will play an important part in this process. However, if I want to take an intervention, I will say that I want to continue. However, as well as helping people into work, universal credit has shown to be very resilient. In the opening months of the pandemic, the system saw an additional 2 million new claimants compared to the months previous to that. It was nearly at a breaking point, but it did not break. It continued. It supported those individuals and ensured that they received the support that they required. Not at the moment. At this time, we all know that we need to see that universal credit is delivered so that many people can support. The £20 week uplift was followed by a further layer of support throughout the unprecedented time, and I was pleased to see the six-month extension to the uplift confirmed in the March budget, following calls from members in those benches for that to be the case. However, it would be remiss of me not to mention, as many colleagues have already done, the continuing uplift and the cost. Those on the opposite ambitions tell us that they believe that the problem of funding is a non-issue. I am sorry, but it is not a non-issue. However, less than a week ago in this chamber, we saw the SNP's social security minister stand in the chamber and refused to say whether he would permanently double the carers allowance supplement. The reason for that, Presiding Officer, was budget considerations. Budget considerations were taken into account. No, thank you. The week before that, we saw the benches opposite vote down our amendment, calling for the Scottish child benefits to be doubled in the next financial year. One has to assume, therefore, that the budgetary constraints had something to do with that. Clearly, then, the SNP Government would like to claim that it is a simple solution to the reality, but there is no simple solution to any of this reality. One possible solution that has been proposed over recent days is the reduction of universal credit taper rate from £63.00 per pound to £60.00 per pound. That was still cost in the region of £1 billion, but it would help those with the burden of ensuring that they were given support. It could also be argued that the taper system of support could be used to ensure that individuals would receive an uplift, and I think that that is something that could be considered. Indeed, that is just one reason why those benches have called for the doubling of the child support payment within the next financial year. I have sympathy that both those proposals would be at and talked about going forward. We have had contributions from members across the chamber this afternoon, and I would like to speak on my colleagues what they have said. Miles Briggs spoke about the unprecedented level of support, giving £14 billion to Scotland to assistance support, jobs-based recovery and plans to kick-start individuals into the community, long-standing work commitments, restarting schemes and building back. Those are all vitally important. Shan Donnelly talked about the DWP and the success that it had endured and the success that it had in taking on millions of new claimants across the country, and building back and ensuring that there was the measure. Bernie Balfour talked about the two parliaments, the 14 years of this Scottish National Party Government, the talk about the controls that this Parliament has and not delivering, and having to hand back powers into the situation from this own Parliament. In conclusion, I have already said that this is far from a simple issue or a simple solution, no matter how loudly the opposite benches try to shout otherwise. I have said and I continue to talk about that there should be no grievance, and the blame game is not what we should be looking at. The SNP Government should choose to work constructively with the UK Government to move on from the pandemic to help people to help people back into work, to help people to deliver and to help people throughout this recovery. That is what the people of this country want to see happen, and I support the amendment in Miles Briggs's name. I call on Ben Macpherson to wind up the debate up to nine minutes, minister. We are living through serious and historic times, and the Conservative Party is about to make a serious and historic mistake that Scotland and the rest of the UK will not forgive. We are still in a pandemic trying together to get through this period, which is not over, as Michael Marra rightly emphasised. We have challenges ahead of us economically, environmentally and in a multiple of ways. We face a perfect storm of cost increases, much caused by Brexit, with people facing rising food prices and rising fuel costs. In such a situation, how could a Government even be thinking about cutting support for some of the most poorest in our society and doing so actively and knowing the harm that it will cause? How can that be right? We saw some of our best as a society during the on-going pandemic. People in communities supported each other, and the Government stepped up, too. I commend the UK Government for what it did. Sharon Dowey is right that the DWP did a lot of good. Bob Dorrish talked about this, too, but that was an acknowledgement back then that universal credit was too little. To support and allow people to fulfil their potential, it was increased. Surely, if it was not enough then, how can it be enough now if £20 is taken away? How can a cut be right? It is always better to give support to someone if they are struggling, rather than to let them fall to the ground and have to pick them back up. That is what social security is all about. It is about making sure that, for the individuals affected and all the services that they have to support them, that we come together as a society and provide the resource to help people. That is what that increase to universal credit helped with. Social security is an investment, a collective investment in each other, and that is what we are building here in Scotland. What baffles me is why the Conservative Government is not grasping this opportunity to reform universal credit instead of cutting it. I have to say that, for Conservative members to try to suggest that this issue is not relevant to Scotland and this Parliament just shows how ignorant they are. Every time a welfare cut from a UK Conservative Government is undertaken, devolved services have to pick up a lot of that damage. We have years of evidence of what needs to be fixed with universal credit, removing the five-week wait for the first payment, replacing the debt-inducing advances with non-repayable grants, scrapping the two-child limit and the abhorrent rape clause, removing the sanctions regime and lifting the benefit cap. The UK Government should be sorting these out, not taking £20 out of the pockets of some of the most poorest in our society. The concepts of levelling up and building back better will mean nothing if that cut is undertaken. You can hear me, Presiding Officer, and you heard it from others today how angry we are that how reckless this is and wrong-headed this is what the UK Government is doing. It is a conscious, nonsensical, unnecessary choice. It will take £6 billion out of the pockets and local economies across the UK. 800,000 people across the UK plunged into poverty, 300,000 children. It will take £460 million a year out of local economies here in Scotland. 60,000 people plunged into poverty, 20,000 children plunged into poverty and will be the biggest overnight cut to welfare in 70 years, as Emma Roddick and Ilumawitam so rightly emphasised. That will have huge consequences for individuals, most importantly. It will mean less food and less heating for so many and it will cause damage to some of the most vulnerable in our society. How can that be right? Presiding Officer, this cut will exacerbate in work poverty, as Maggie Chapman rightly emphasised, because 175,000 people are households who are claiming universal credit are, of course, working households. It is nonsensical economically, as Michael Marra rightly said. It is illiterate and illogical because it will take money out of local economies as we try to recover. It is also so unnecessary. The UK Government has so many revenue-raising tools at its disposal. It has a full suite of fiscal and monetary powers. It could bring in a windfall tax, as Alec Rowley suggested. It has full borrowing powers. It could use its digital services tax. It could use corporation tax. It could use capital gains tax, inheritance tax, dividend, income tax, as Carol Monaghan rightly argued for. Yet, with all of those options, once again it is decided to punish the poor, to cut support for the lowest paid, to cut support for the most vulnerable. How could it do that at this worst possible time? How can that be right? Conservative members talked about two parliaments, two Governments, and this is a tale of two parliaments and two Governments, because we in the Scottish Government will do what we can. We will do what we can with what we have, as we have done throughout the past years. Pam Duncan Glancy's suggestions, as always, are taking in good faith, and we look forward to working together with her. However, it is not reasonable or acceptable to expect the Scottish Government to mitigate every bad policy that is decided by a UK Tory Government—a UK Tory Government that Scotland never voted for. While we are in the UK, it is for the UK Government to be held responsible for its actions, and it must be held accountable for its decisions. However, most of all, it should listen to the people of Scotland. Will the UK Government, will the Conservatives listen to the anti-poverty charities? Surely ignoring them cannot be right. Will it listen to the voices from across political parties, including in their own? Surely ignoring such widespread criticism and concern cannot be right. Will it listen to the lessons from history of the dire consequences of not supporting those in need when they need it most? Surely ignoring them cannot be right. Will the Tory MSPs listen? Will the Tory MPs, as Willie Rennie rightly emphasised, listen? Surely to loyally stand by on this issue cannot be right. I urge Parliament today to vote to reject this £20 universal credit cut, and then I urge the UK Government to listen. I urge them to listen to the people of Scotland who we all represent, including over there. I urge them at this stage to do the right thing. For goodness sake, in these times, do the right thing. If they don't, we will not forget. If this Scottish Parliament votes for the motion today and is ignored and our people suffer, we will know who to blame, because in no way can this universal credit cut be right. In no way can it be reasonably or morally justified, especially at this time. If the Scottish Parliament is ignored and our people suffer, we will know who to blame. We will remember who did not speak up the Scottish Conservatives. We will remember that a Tory UK Government that Scotland never voted for will fully punish those less fortunate at this most difficult of times, and they did so against Scotland's will. We will remember that, and the people that we represent will remember it too. That concludes the debate on keeping the lifeline, a call to the UK Government to cancel their cut to universal credit. It is now time to move on to the next item of business, which is consideration of motion 1397, in the name of Michael Matheson, on environmental standard Scotland appointment of the chief executive. I call on Minister Mary McKellen to speak to and move the motion. The cabinet secretary for net zero energy and transport explained the background of the motion in his letter of 6 September to the net set committee. The committee had the opportunity to ask questions then and did not raise any. However, as was expressed, the continuity act, as an extra safeguard to the independence of the new body, provides that the appointment of the first chief executive of the statutory environmental standard Scotland is to be made by ministers with the approval of the Scottish Parliament. The appointment that is being proposed for approval in the motion is of a suitably qualified and experienced civil servant to this post on a temporary basis, allowing ESS itself to make a longer term appointment. I move the motion. The question on this motion will be put at decision time. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 1431, in the name of George Adam, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau, setting out changes to business this week. Any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press their request to speak button now. I call on George Adam to move the motion. Thank you. No member has asked to speak against the motion. Therefore, the question is that motion 1431 be agreed, are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed. The next item of business is consideration of two parliamentary bureau motions. I ask George Adam, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau, to move motions 1432 and 1433 on approval of SSIs. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and moved. The question on these motions will be put at decision time. There are four questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first is that amendment 1405.1, in the name of Miles Briggs, which seeks to amend motion 1405, in the name of Shona Robison, on keeping the lifeline, a call to cancel the cut to universal credit be agreed, are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed to, therefore, we will move to a vote, and there will be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system.