���˿���

Absolutely.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you think that the current amount of support that unpaid carers get from the state, through either the supplement or carers allowance, is sufficient to keep them out of poverty?

I will support the regulations, convener, but I have a couple of questions.

I do not know whether it is just me, but it feels as though the regulations are really complex. To be honest, I do not think that we have had much time to get under the skin of them. Are we happy that enough data have been provided and that we understand who the winners and losers are here? I welcome the levelling of the reduction for people on legacy benefits and those on universal credit—it is absolutely the right thing to do—but do we really understand the differences here and who is or is not going to do okay out of this? That is my only concern about the regulations.

I have questions on the procurement process and on the points that have been made about funding. You said that a significant procurement process has been gone through. That is excellent and is what we would expect. I might have expected that an organisation that already has jurisdiction and works in Scotland would end up providing the service. Were there any applications from organisations that already deliver advocacy in Scotland? I am keen to know a bit about that, particularly given that you said that funding will be provided for the purpose of advocacy relating to Social Security Scotland benefits to one organisation only, and that that organisation is not yet based here.

The convener’s point about representation at tribunals and during assessments is important, because it is important that people have the option to take a person with whom they have a relationship as an advocate and to have a bit of choice in that. Notwithstanding the fact that funding only one agency to do that limits choice, will people still be able to go to their assessment with someone else as their advocate? Will it be the case that that advocate’s views will not be disregarded because they do not work for VoiceAbility?

Forgive me if this is the incorrect moment to say this, but amendment 3 is really good and gives us a strong opportunity to send a signal to carers who have worked day and night throughout the pandemic and before that. We must not forget that unpaid carers provided care long before the pandemic. However, over the past year in particular, they have been doing that under a lot of stress and strain, and many have been plunged into poverty.

I thank the member for taking a further intervention. She is right to point out that those benefits have been more generous in some ways, but unpaid carers in their homes are not comparing themselves with people elsewhere in the UK. They are comparing themselves with people who are considerably better off because they do not have to provide unpaid care. Unpaid carers who are not getting carers allowance because the eligibility has not been extended are also comparing themselves with carers who are getting the allowance. Those are the comparisons that unpaid carers in the constituencies and communities that we represent are making. They are not looking at whether someone is better off elsewhere.

Thank you, convener—that is noted. Will the member explain why she thinks that that is an ad hoc approach?

I echo what we have heard already, which is that the regulations are welcome. They will open up opportunities for advocacy for other people.

My final point is about training for the advocacy providers. Have you given thought to the sort of training that they might get in relation to disabled people or carers, for example? In the past—not here, but in other jurisdictions—some providers have not necessarily had the training or support required to give clients the full support that they need. Will the training take into account the range of conditions that the people who they will be supporting might have?