Scottish Parliament, 2 November 2022

291 contributions from 56 members. The official report.

Covid-19 Recovery and Parliamentary Business

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Good afternoon. The first item of business this afternoon is portfolio question time. The first portfolio is Covid-19 recovery and parliamentary business. Any members who—

Members

We cannot hear you.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I will try again. Is that any better?

Members

No.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That is an inauspicious start to the afternoon.

There we go—you can hear me now. Third time lucky.

For those who are not aware, the first

item of business this afternoon is portfolio question time. The first portfolio is Covid-19 recovery and parliamentary business. As ever, any member who wishes to ask a supplementary question should press their request-to-speak button or type “RTS” in the chat function if they are joining us remotely.

We are tight for time across this afternoon, so—as ever—I would appreciate succinct questions and answers whenever possible.

Covid Recovery Strategy (Evaluation of Progress)

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

1. To ask the Scottish Government how it will evaluate the progress made in achieving the intended outcomes of its Covid recovery strategy. (S6O-01476)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The Covid recovery strategy

sets out three high-level outcomes, which focus on reducing inequalities and supporting people who have been most affected during the pandemic. Those outcomes, which are shared with local government, are also relevant to the Scottish Government’s on-going response to the cost of living crisis. The Scottish Government is working in close partnership with local government, Public Health Scotland and the Improvement Service to promote the shared outcomes and to consider the experiences of different people and places across Scotland. Together, we are using a range of data sources, including national performance framework indicators, to better understand and evaluate progress towards our shared outcomes.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

We all know that Covid continues to have an impact on poverty, diagnostic waiting times and pupil attainment, for example. How is that impact being measured? The cabinet secretary alluded to the national performance framework, but I know that colleagues in the Parliament have struggled to secure questions relating to such measures. Does the cabinet secretary believe that tracking and reporting on such measures is part of the Covid recovery brief?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I would certainly judge that to be the case, yes. The issues that Mr Johnson raises are all relevant to the post-Covid situation. The recovery measures that we are taking are not just Covid related; for example, they also address the issue of inequality, which Mr Johnson has raised. He has heard me say before that Covid exacerbated inequality, it did not create it.

The framework that we have in place through the national performance framework effectively provides a forum in which to address the issues that Mr Johnson properly raises. For the record, I would be very happy to answer any questions on those matters, should they be selected.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

That is helpful.

Covid Recovery Strategy (Rural and Island Tourism Businesses)

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

2. To ask the Scottish Government how its Covid recovery strategy is supporting rural and island tourism businesses. (S6O-01477)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The Government is

committed to supporting the recovery of the tourism sector in our rural and island communities. Since the pandemic started, we have delivered packages totalling £258.5 million to support Scottish tourism and hospitality businesses. We established the rural tourism infrastructure fund to support critical projects in rural and island areas. Additionally, we have helped businesses to recover through the tourism recovery programme, which consists of 10 projects that are aimed at assisting and accelerating recovery and providing the foundations for the sustainable recovery of the sector. The new tourism and hospitality industry leadership group that we have established will drive sustainable long-term recovery.

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

I have been contacted by a number of hospitality businesses in my constituency, which are concerned that they may not survive this winter due to the impact of the cost of living crisis, with produce costs and energy bills both having skyrocketed. Given the devastating impact of that and of earlier events on the hospitality sector, can the cabinet secretary outline what representations the Scottish Government is making to the United Kingdom Government on the lack of adequate support for energy costs for small and medium-sized enterprises that are not on the gas grid?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Those issues are being put to the United Kingdom Government regularly by the Scottish Government, and the First Minister indicated those points in her letter to the new Prime Minister on 27 October.

The point that Dr Allan raises about the particular challenges of energy costs for non-grid users is a particular problem that is the subject of active dialogue with the United Kingdom Government, and I assure him that we recognise the importance of that being taken forward.

I would also make the point that the wider inflationary pressures beyond energy costs, in relation to food and supplies, to which Dr Allan has referred, are significant issues, and they have been exacerbated by the decisions that have been taken, which have fuelled inflation. The lack of action on energy costs over the summer has contributed significantly to that experience, too.

Covid Recovery (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

Elena Whitham (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

3. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on how it is working with colleagues in local government, as part of its Covid recovery strategy, to support Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley’s recovery from Covid-19. (S6O-01478)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities have agreed shared priorities for recovery, focusing on those most affected by the pandemic. The Covid recovery strategy brings together more than 70 actions that will support people across Scotland by increasing the financial security of low-income households, by enhancing the wellbeing of children and young people and by creating good, green jobs and fair work. The strategy also focuses on renewing public services to ensure that they meet the specific needs of people and communities.

East Ayrshire Council and South Ayrshire Council, which cover Elena Whitham’s Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley parliamentary constituency, have been allocated an additional £38.6 million and £34.4 million respectively, through the local government settlement, to respond to the Covid-19 pandemic. Those payments are over and above their regular grant payments, which, in 2022-23, have each increased by more than 10 per cent.

Elena Whitham (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

What impact will the delay to the United Kingdom Government’s fiscal statement have on the Scottish Government’s ability to plan ahead in terms of the support that it can provide to local government, particularly in the context of the Tory Government’s trashing of the UK economy—a failure for which it is now making people pay the price through its new wave of impending austerity cuts, which will slash public services and cut incomes? Does the cabinet secretary agree that independence is the only way to keep Scotland safe from the damaging Tory cuts and long-term economic decline?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I fundamentally agree with Elena Whitham’s analysis. I make the point that the decisions that were taken in the mini-budget over the summer—about which I will have more to say in the statement that I will make to Parliament this afternoon—have significantly exacerbated the scale of the financial challenge that we, households and businesses are wrestling with, which will be felt acutely in the constituencies that Elena Whitham represents.

The timing of the fiscal statement, which has been delayed from 31 October to 17 November, compresses the available time that the Scottish Government will have in which to consider that information and, as a consequence, formulate the financial settlement for local government that arises. However, I assure Elena Whitham that we will take forward the dialogue with local government that she would expect of us in addressing those issues.

Covid Recovery Strategy (Stakeholder Engagement)

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

4. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its engagement with stakeholders regarding its Covid recovery strategy. (S6O-01479)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The Covid recovery strategy was informed by extensive stakeholder engagement, and the Scottish Government continues to work closely with a wide range of partners to ensure a successful recovery. We regularly meet stakeholders, including local government, community planning partners, the third sector and business organisations, to resolve barriers, identify solutions and maintain progress.

Our stakeholder engagement informs the discussions and decisions of the Covid recovery programme board, which I co-chair alongside the president of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, and it allows us to work together towards a shared national vision for recovery, as well as to support local recovery that is informed by local priorities.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

I am pleased that the cabinet secretary mentioned the third sector. We all appreciate the value that charities and volunteers provided during the Covid pandemic. That period completely revolutionised the perception of selfless giving and of helping our fellows in our communities.

That said, in its pre-budget submission, Volunteer Scotland raised substantial concerns about what are likely to be substantial cuts to third sector funding over the next couple of years, notwithstanding the issues that were mentioned by the cabinet secretary. How do we ensure that those much-needed and vital voluntary organisations survive and thrive in our communities, given the good work that they do and the pressure that they take off paid public services?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Mr Greene raises a substantial point, and it is one that we need to keep in mind as we work our way through what will be a really difficult budget process this year, which will be compressed into a tight timescale. I will not rehearse all the issues around that, as I will have enough to say about it later.

The point that Mr Greene raises is one that I am anxious, at all times, not to lose sight of, because I am convinced—indeed, I am a strong advocate of this within Government—that the third sector can undertake work that will deliver better outcomes, more than likely for less money, if we can properly support and design that assistance.

This morning, with Mr Gray, the minister who is looking after the Ukrainian refugee programme, I visited a third sector venture in Aberfeldy, in my constituency. The group is called Feldy-Roo—I will leave members to reflect on the name—and is made up of local volunteers who emerged from the Covid programme that delivered vital assistance to families during the Covid pandemic. Those volunteers have created a hub for welcoming and supporting Ukrainian refugees and are now supporting more than 70 individuals in the community. That is working fabulously well, but it is a third sector venture that is achieving huge amounts of work with very small amounts of money. Therefore, I am anxious that we take Mr Greene’s point forward substantively during the budget process.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

The decision to close all bar four of Scottish Enterprise’s offices, including one in Clydebank, suggests that regional economic development is not a strategic priority for the Scottish Government. There are real and genuine concerns that there is a disjointed approach to business support and economic recovery. Can the cabinet secretary tell me how he will ensure that regional economic development and support for business are not lost as a result of those decisions?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I reassure Jackie Baillie that I do not consider that the test or measure by which we deliver effective business support is the arrangements for having offices around the country. There are many changes in the way in which services are now being delivered, with an increasing move towards digital delivery of services and the remote working with which we have all become familiar. If the decisions that have been taken are a means of enabling us to deliver a wider range of business support, we should be prepared to embrace reform.

I will have much more to say about it this afternoon, but the existing financial arrangements will put enormous strain on maintaining the current network of arrangements that we have in place.

Finally, I want to make it clear to Jackie Baillie that the national strategy for economic transformation recognises the absolute centrality of regional economic policy. I welcome the opportunity to put that on the record today and to reassure Jackie Baillie about that, because there is no point in the Government pursuing an economic strategy that works only for some parts of the country. It needs to work for all parts of the country, and that is the focus of the national strategy’s regional economic policy approach.

Covid Recovery Strategy (High Streets)

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what support is available in the context of its Covid recovery strategy to help high streets to recover from the pandemic and ensure that there are no long-term scarring effects. (S6O-01480)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

We are working with all of Scotland’s cities and towns to support their recovery and help to build thriving and sustainable towns and cities of the future.

We maintain a competitive non-domestic rates regime and are delivering the lowest non-domestic rates poundage in the UK for the fourth year in a row, and we are supporting a generous package of non-domestic rates reliefs that is worth £801 million.

That is in addition to the action that we are taking to support our town and city centres, and to help retailers and communities to recover, not least through our £80 million Covid economic recovery fund, the £6 million city centre recovery fund, the £325 million place-based investment programme, our retail strategy and the town centre action plan.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Last week, the Scottish Retail Consortium reported that the recovery in vacancy rates has stalled in Scotland, compared with what is happening in the rest of the United Kingdom. That is evident in my home city of Aberdeen, where the business improvement district company, Aberdeen Inspired, has organised an emergency summit next Wednesday in order to save Union Street. Will the cabinet secretary attend that summit, so that he can hear, at first hand, from the retail and hospitality industries about the issues that they face?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

It is unlikely that I will be able to attend that event, but I am glad that it is happening and that the business community is drawing together partners to ensure that it can happen. If Mr Lumsden wishes to write to me after the event to let me know the issues that are raised and the points that are identified, I will happily engage on those questions.

In the case of the city of Aberdeen, it is important that individual communities join together the work of local authorities and business improvement districts. Just the other week, I had a discussion with Opportunity North East to identify further steps that we can take to advance much of the good collaboration that is going on on those measures. I will be very happy to address any questions that arise from the summit, if Mr Lumsden draws them to my attention.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

In addition to the challenges that are posed by the pandemic and Brexit, businesses on Scottish high streets now face pressures that have been caused by the catastrophic economic policies of the Tory Government at Westminster. With nothing but uncertainty and austerity cuts on the horizon as a consequence, does the Deputy First Minister share my view that the people of Scotland should have the right to decide whether to continue to suffer in a less productive and highly unequal UK economy, or to seize the opportunities that independence gives us?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I would very much welcome the opportunity for people in Scotland to decide on the independence question and to exercise a choice about the approach to governance that they wish to see in Scotland. We face extremely difficult challenges ahead, which have been made worse by a combination of Brexit and the United Kingdom Government’s decision making, which has had catastrophic implications for businesses and families.

Mr Kidd’s point is a substantial one with which I agree. I would welcome the opportunity for people in Scotland to exercise that choice.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Question 6 has not been lodged.

Parliamentary Privilege

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

7. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions ministers have had with the United Kingdom Government regarding making MSPs prescribed persons under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, and extending parliamentary privilege. (S6O-01482)

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

The Scottish Government has no formal role over MSPs or the Scottish Parliament, and the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body therefore led in making a direct request to United Kingdom Government officials on the issue.

The UK Government laid the statutory instrument that adds MSPs to the list of whistleblowing prescribed persons in Westminster on 17 October. When the change comes into force on 15 December, MSPs will have parity with MPs on the matter. The Scottish Parliament will be responsible for providing MSPs with guidance and training on the impact of the legislation.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I welcome the minister’s response in relation to PIDA, which is an act that I think is long overdue for reform.

Every one of us in the chamber will hear from our constituents, on a regular basis, stories of injustice, people being let down very badly by service providers, mistreatment and worse. The Scottish Parliament must be the place where such issues can be brought up, discussed and addressed, and members of this Parliament should be unafraid of censure or legal challenge. MPs are given legal protections when speaking in the House of Commons. Therefore, will the minister support a move to introduce the same privileges to members of the Scottish Parliament that are enjoyed by MPs in the House of Commons?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Although I think that Stephen Kerr makes a number of important points, the Scottish Parliament, rather than the Scottish Government, has now taken action that will, from the perspective of Stephen Kerr and other MSPs, at least improve the situation and give them parity with MPs. In respect of whistleblowing, that means that anyone who wishes to approach an MSP can do so with their own employment protected, as is the case in relation to MPs in Westminster.

With regard to any other improvements relating to the privileges or otherwise of MSPs that Stephen Kerr would like to see, he might wish to raise them with the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament.

Covid-19 Booster Vaccination Programme

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

8. To ask the Scottish Government what role the autumn/winter Covid-19 booster vaccination programme will play in its Covid recovery strategy. (S6O-01483)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The winter vaccination programme will play a vital role in protecting people at the highest risk from severe illness and hospitalisation this winter. That will help to ease the potential additional pressures that Covid-19 and flu put on the national health service and social care services over the winter months.

Although uptake of the vaccines has exceeded our expectations, we are continually exploring ways to increase the vaccination rate. In line with our commitments in our Covid recovery strategy, we have embedded inclusivity as a key aspect of the vaccination programme from its outset, and we are working alongside health boards and other partners to encourage uptake, remove barriers and respond to evidence of low uptake in certain communities, including people from more deprived areas.

The winter vaccination programme began on 5 September, starting with front-line health and social care workers, and residents and staff in care homes for older adults. Appointments for those aged 65 and over began on 19 September. Those aged 50 to 64 with no additional risk factors have been able to book an appointment online since 24 October. Appointments for those aged five to 64 in a clinical risk group also began in the week commencing 24 October.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Does the cabinet secretary agree that it is vital that as many people as possible take up the offer of both Covid and flu vaccinations? That is one way that they can help to protect themselves, their family and the wider community, and take pressure off front-line health services.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Yes, I do. The Covid vaccination programme has been an unbridled success. It has given assurance to the population, and it has given protection to our vital public services, which would have been overwhelmed without it. It has also enabled many of us, but not all of us—some of our fellow citizens still face real challenges because of their own wider health factors—to return to something that is closer to normality in our lives. The programme has delivered welcome progress in that regard.

I take this opportunity to encourage everyone in the eligible groups to take up vaccination.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I echo everything that the Deputy First Minister has said about the importance of taking up the booster vaccination. I booked my booster for next week. Perhaps I will see him when I attend.

However, there seems to be anecdotal evidence that some individuals are reluctant to come forward for a booster. Perhaps that is because they think that the pandemic is over. Does the Scottish Government have any data as yet on take-up figures for the booster? If not, when are we likely to get that data? What more can the Government do to target groups, including certain ethnic minorities, that have historically been reluctant to come forward to get vaccinated?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I am glad to hear that Mr Fraser has booked his appointment; so have I. I was going to be rather impertinent and suggest that I would have thought that he would have been in an earlier group to me, age-wise. Clearly, it would be inappropriate for me to even infer that.

Take up has been very encouraging; it has exceeded our expectations to date. I have numbers in front of me, so I presume that I can use them. Among older adults in care homes, uptake is 85 per cent, and in the age 65 and over age group 74.2 per cent have been vaccinated already—and we are not through the programme yet.

We are very encouraged by the progress that has been made so far. However, having said that, I note Mr Fraser’s legitimate point. We must use every opportunity to encourage people to take up vaccination and not to be deterred by some of the stuff that swirls around. Vaccination offers essential protection not only for individuals but for our public services, because it is a way of reducing the demand that might otherwise present itself.

I assure Mr Fraser and Parliament that the Government is tailoring its messages to ensure that we reach—as I mentioned in my earlier answer to Mr McMillan—the groups in which, from our evidence and experience, take up can be low. We are taking steps to improve that through our communications.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I can confirm that I, too, have booked my appointment. I assume that that is because NHS Orkney is working through the age groups more quickly than other health boards are. [

Laughter

.]

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

When asking my question, I failed to point members to my entry in the register of members’ interests as a director of WhistleblowersUK. It is important that I put that on the record.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Thank you, Mr Kerr. That is, indeed, on the record.

Finance and Economy

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The next portfolio is finance and the economy. I encourage members who wish to ask a question to press their request-to-speak button or, if they are joining us remotely, to place “RTS” in the chat function during the relevant question.

Cost of Living (United Kingdom Government Support)

Stephanie Callaghan (Scottish National Party, Uddingston and Bellshill)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what its latest engagement has been with the United Kingdom Government regarding the funding available to support people with the increased cost of living. (S6O-01484)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I had an initial meeting with the new Chief Secretary to the Treasury last week, and I have sent a number of letters to the UK Government to request urgent action to address the cost of living crisis, given that the powers to properly support people and businesses are currently reserved. The First Minister also wrote to the Prime Minister last week to call for urgent action that meets the scale of the challenge, including additional funding for devolved Governments to support our people, provide fair public sector pay uplifts, and protect our public services.

Stephanie Callaghan (Scottish National Party, Uddingston and Bellshill)

Households on low incomes desperately need stability and certainty as they try to afford the essentials, pay their rent, and keep food on the table. Will the Scottish Government call on the UK Government to extend its cost of living support with new support packages that target the households that are most impacted by the increased cost of living, as we have done in Scotland, and demand the uprating of benefits in line with inflation?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

We have made those calls to the United Kingdom Government. We recognised the importance of increasing social security benefits in line with inflation in April and, if we were able to see the bringing in of a permanent £25 uplift to universal credit, for example, that would make a huge difference to the circumstances of low-income households.

The Government in Scotland is, of course, taking steps in the public sector pay deals that we are putting in place to ensure that those with the lowest incomes receive the highest percentage increases. All those measures are designed to support people practically.

I assure Stephanie Callaghan that the Scottish Government is using every opportunity to engage with our United Kingdom Government counterparts to advance those important issues.

Disabled People (Employment Rate)

Emma Roddick (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what progress has been made regarding increasing the employment rate for disabled people. (S6O-01485)

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

The latest figures from the Office for National Statistics annual population survey show that the employment rate for disabled people in 2021 was estimated to be 49.6 per cent. That is an increase from 42.8 per cent in 2016, which was our baseline year for halving the disability employment gap. That indicates that we have made significant progress towards meeting our first interim target to increase the employment rate of disabled people to 50 per cent by 2023.

Emma Roddick (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

The progress that the minister has outlined is very welcome. Can he confirm that the Scottish Government is on track to meeting its overall targets in increasing the employment rate for disabled people?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

In the Scottish Government’s 2018 publication “A Fairer Scotland for Disabled People: Employment Action Plan”, we identified the interim milestone that the employment rate for disabled people will increase to 50 per cent by 2023, as I have said, and that it will rise to 60 per cent by 2030. I confirm that it is our understanding that we are currently on track to meet those targets. The Scottish Government also made an overarching commitment to ensuring that the disability employment gap is reduced by at least half of its 2016 level by 2038. We are making good progress in Scotland, but there is, of course, still a lot to do.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Jeremy Balfour has a supplementary question.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

Can the minister shed a little light on why Scotland lags behind England in terms of disability employment? The latest figures that I have, which are from 2021, show that the average English employment gap is 27 per cent and that the gap is as low as 22.4 per cent in the south-east of England, whereas the gap in Scotland is 32.8 per cent. Why is there that difference?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I would be happy to look at the regional figures for England and to try to delve a bit further into why there might be any differential. It is encouraging that we are making progress in Scotland on closing the disability employment gap, and I hope that the measures that we are taking are making a difference. Of course, many stakeholders and organisations are supporting that, as well.

There are a number of different indicators. Some show that Scotland is ahead of the rest of the United Kingdom. Jeremy Balfour has highlighted some regional disparity perhaps. I would be happy to look into that further and perhaps to drop Jeremy Balfour a note.

Employability (Budget Reduction)

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

3. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide details of the £53 million reduction in the employability budget announced by the Deputy First Minister in September 2022. (S6O-01486)

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

The £53 million was to support additional employability activity in 2022-23. Of course, the decision not to issue that funding was not taken lightly but, at a time of acute labour shortages, historically low unemployment and soaring inflation, the Scottish ministers have been clear on the need to prioritise money in people’s pockets now over additional spending on employability, which is unlikely to result in immediate benefits for individuals. However, we have maintained our existing investment in employability this year, with more than £59 million being made available through the no one left behind approach, and £23.5 million available through fair start Scotland in 2022-23.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

Any cuts to the employability budget could impact on essential apprenticeship places right across Scotland. Presently, there are almost 1,000 apprenticeships in Dumfries and Galloway with employers such as Jas P Wilson and DuPont Teijin Films. Those apprentice places provide an excellent pathway for young people to develop their skills and give them a great start in their career, but they also provide vital skills that are needed in my constituency. Will the minister give a commitment to protecting apprenticeships so that young people in my constituency and across Scotland will continue to have such opportunities?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I am happy to give Finlay Carson the assurance that he asks for. However, I point out that the employability budget is a different matter. It comes under our limited powers in relation to employment, through which we can support people who are very far from the labour market to come into it. That is what we are speaking about when we talk about employability budgets.

I make the obvious point to Finlay Carson that, if he is concerned about the budgets that are available to the Scottish Government and the Parliament, he should be making representations to the United Kingdom Government, and he might wish to offer his support to the Deputy First Minister when he delivers his budget statement in a short while.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

The notable thing about the employability cut is that the employability line was the only line within the skills and training budget that was actually going up. That underlines the need to focus on the area. What is being done to improve the accessibility to disabled people of apprenticeships and other skills measures?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I reiterate that we retain our employability budget and that what was cut was the planned increase. Clearly, we took that decision against a very difficult backdrop. I dealt with Daniel Johnson’s point about apprenticeships in responding to Finlay Carson’s question, and I dealt with the point about disabled people in answering the previous question. This specific question is about the employability budget. We still have that budget, but the substantial increase that we planned was cancelled due to the pressures on Scotland’s overall budget.

Prestwick Airport (South Ayrshire Economy)

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

4. To ask the Scottish Government whether it can provide an update on Prestwick airport’s contribution to the South Ayrshire economy. (S6O-01487)

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

Prestwick airport continues to grow steadily, making a positive contribution to the local and regional economy and supporting 300 direct jobs as well as many more in the local economy. The airport is working with the councils in the area to play its part in attracting inward investment through projects that are connected with aviation. The management and board have a clear strategy to deliver growth, and the airport continues to strengthen its position as a niche airport with a reputation for being innovative and flexible in meeting customers’ needs.

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

Prestwick was one of the few airports in the world to make a profit during the pandemic, and it has played a major part in cargo distribution across the United Kingdom. With the Brexit chaos and the backlog of cargo at Heathrow, it was actually quicker to send cargo to Prestwick and then down to London than it was to get it out of Heathrow. Prestwick airport is also an integral part of the aerospace industry, which currently supports more than 4,000 jobs locally. Does the minister agree that the continual Conservative criticism in the chamber of Prestwick airport is bizarre?

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

I agree with Siobhian Brown that it is important for all of us to consider the language that we use in the chamber and to make sure that, when we make critical points, we do not do so in a way that talks down or undermines confidence in any sector of our economy.

Prestwick has clearly had significant challenges, but the recent performance of the business is promising and welcome. Significant progress has been made in winning a bigger share of the fixed-based operations market, property around the campus has very high occupancy rates and, as well as continuing passenger operations, the airport is focused on growing its dedicated cargo operations, for which it has a strong reputation. As the home to approximately half of Scotland’s aerospace sector, Prestwick is playing a key role in the Ayrshire growth deal and helping to unlock significant inward investment, thereby creating high-value jobs and potential supply chain opportunities in South Ayrshire. All of us, including all the Opposition parties, can surely be proud of that progress.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I apologise for not advising members earlier that there is a grouping for this portfolio. Question 5 is grouped with question 8, so I will take any supplementary questions after question 8.

Economy (Engagement with United Kingdom Government)

Audrey Nicoll (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen South and North Kincardine)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what recent engagement it has had with the United Kingdom Government on matters impacting the Scottish economy. (S6O-01488)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Over the past few weeks, I have had discussions with a number of Chief Secretaries to the Treasury—I had a discussion with the new one just last week. I also had extensive discussions with the previous Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities on investment zones. I have made clear the impact of the current economic crisis on people across Scotland and our economy, including the increased pressures on the Scottish budget and the vital public services that we support.

Audrey Nicoll (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen South and North Kincardine)

Aberdeen and the rest of the north-east have made significant contributions to UK Government coffers through the energy sector. In return, the north-east of Scotland has been gifted Brexit—with Aberdeen being the worst-hit UK city, at a cost of £9,000 per person—turmoil in the housing market, and sky-high energy bills, which have damaged families and forced small businesses to close. Does the Deputy First Minister agree that it is time for the UK Government to stop treating the north-east as a cash cow and that Rishi Sunak must get a grip on the economy, which his party has ruined?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Audrey Nicoll raises serious economic issues that are affecting the north-east of Scotland. The principal issue that she raised was Brexit and its implications on the supply of labour and on companies’ ability to trade effectively with markets with which they were very familiar up until the implementation of the Brexit deal. That difficulty has been added to by turmoil in the housing market, which has been severely damaged by the effects of the mini-budget, and the wider consequences that Audrey Nicoll highlighted. She has raised significant issues that are having a negative effect on the north-east of Scotland’s economy.

The Scottish Government is keen to support the north-east through the matching funding that we have provided for the Aberdeen city region deal and the £75 million that we have provided for the energy transition fund. We have also committed to the £500 million just transition fund.

We recognise the significant challenges that the north-east of Scotland’s economy faces. We must make a transition to net zero, and that must be done in a just fashion, so the Scottish Government is determined to work with the north-east and interested local authorities and parties to advance that agenda. However, the prevailing economic conditions are very challenging because of Brexit and the prevailing economic mood that has arisen from UK Government decisions.

Chancellor of the Exchequer (Meetings)

The Deputy Presiding Officer

8. To ask the Scottish Government when it last met with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. (S6O-01491)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I have not had a meeting with the current chancellor, but I have corresponded with chancellors on a number of occasions, as has Kate Forbes, the substantive finance secretary. I point out that a number of letters from Kate Forbes, the Welsh finance minister and the Northern Irish finance minister were not replied to by United Kingdom chancellors for a significant number of months. Given that we get lectured in this Parliament about engagement with the UK Government, I point out that some of our correspondence quite simply does not get answered. I have had an apology for that fact and, I am glad to say, a reply to my most recent letter from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. It is difficult for us to advance dialogue when there is nobody at the other end to engage on such questions.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

It is very disappointing to note that the latest UK chancellor, by not finding the time to speak with the Deputy First Minister and acting finance cabinet secretary directly, appears to have as little regard for Scotland and our elected Government as his predecessors did. As for the lack of response to correspondence, there is no excuse for that. What on earth happened to the respect agenda?

What options, if any, would be open to the Deputy First Minister, in the context of the devolved settlement, to protect the people of Scotland from further UK Tory Government austerity cuts, for which people in my Cowdenbeath constituency and across Scotland did not vote?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Annabelle Ewing puts her case powerfully, as I would expect. The constituents she represents in Cowdenbeath will be significantly affected in a negative way by a further programme of austerity and, in her case load, Annabelle Ewing will be dealing with the consequences of the last round of austerity from the UK Government.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury has promised me dialogue in advance of the statement on 17 November. I will obviously commit myself to that at any occasion, in the hope of influencing the agenda in order to avoid a further round of austerity, which would be damaging for Ms Ewing’s constituents and members of the public around the country.

I point out that there was no interaction with the Scottish Government before the mini-budget in late September. There was absolutely no dialogue—indeed, not even the courtesy of an advance phone call—which is a breach of the normal protocols of dialogue. The current Chief Secretary to the Treasury has assured me that the normal protocols of interaction have been restored, and I will hold him to that, because it is vital that the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government—my colleagues in Wales and Northern Ireland are just as livid about this as I am—that we are properly engaged with to ensure that we can put forward the concerns and the views of members of Parliament and, in particular, of constituents such as those of Ms Ewing, which she has put to me today.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

The Deputy First Minister has mentioned his engagement with the UK Government, but I was disappointed to learn recently that there has been minimal engagement from Scottish ministers on the development and refresh of the UK national shipbuilding strategy. Will the Deputy First Minister please commit to having the Scottish Government engage fully with that strategy, given that we are the second biggest purchaser of vessels in the public sector, after the Ministry of Defence? We need to get this right, because when vessels are awarded to Turkey, it is a failure for the Scottish industry.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I am happy to commit to dialogue on any aspect of strategy that affects the industrial base of Scotland or any other question affecting Scotland. I respectfully point out to Mr Sweeney that there has not been a functioning UK Government for the best part of 12 months. The UK Government has literally not functioned: interaction has been appalling; dialogue has been one way; no decision making has come back from the UK Government, and what decision making it has undertaken, such as in the mini-budget, was, as Mr Sweeney and I will agree, catastrophic.

I hope that we have some degree of functioning government in the UK Government to allow us to advance the legitimate issue that Mr Sweeney has put to me this afternoon.

Hospitality Sector (Support)

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

6. To ask the Scottish Government what support it is providing to businesses in the hospitality sector, in light of the recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic and the cost of living crisis. (S6O-01489)

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

The hospitality sector is vital to Scotland’s economy. We provided more than £4.7 billion in support to businesses during the pandemic, including across the tourism and hospitality sector, and we are closely monitoring impacts of the cost crisis. We are also establishing a tourism and hospitality industry leadership group to drive sustainable long-term recovery.

We maintain competitive non-domestic rates, delivering the lowest non-domestic rates poundage in the United Kingdom for the fourth consecutive year, supporting a package of non-domestic rates reliefs worth £801 million.

In light of increased pressures and limited powers, we will continue to press the United Kingdom Government for support.

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

During the October recess, I was invited to meet a number of pub owners in Coatbridge Main Street, who expressed real concern about the viability of their businesses in the short term, due to the cost of living crisis, rising energy costs and changes in behaviour following the pandemic.

One of those is the Eden group, which employs nearly 100 people in my constituency and was in

The National

this weekend—the minister might have seen that. It called on the chancellor to immediately cut VAT, offer rates assistance and provide some form of recovery funding. Does the minister agree with those calls on the UK Government and will he lend his voice to them?

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

We understand that businesses such as the Eden Group, which operates in Fulton MacGregor’s constituency, continue to face significant challenges, including as a result of the longer-term impact of the pandemic and the cost crisis. We do not underestimate the scale of those challenges. That is why my colleague the Deputy First Minister wrote to Jeremy Hunt, the new chancellor, on 19 October to re-emphasise the need for targeted support for households and businesses, funded by windfall gains in the energy sector, and to seek clarity on the support that will be available from April 2023.

We will continue to work with businesses in Scotland to press the UK Government for a range of measures—including recovery support and measures on VAT—to help to ease the pressures.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Douglas Lumsden has a brief supplementary question.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The Audit Scotland report “Scotland’s financial response to Covid-19”, which was published this year, stated that 100 per cent of the £4.5 billion of Barnett consequentials relating to business support was allocated. However, how much of that £4.5 billion was allocated to funds but not spent? Is that money now available to help businesses that are struggling now?

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

We have committed all Covid consequentials for business support that we received during the pandemic to support businesses. I missed some of the detail of the member’s questions, but I am happy to consult the

Official Report

and to get back to him in writing if I missed anything.

Small Businesses (Support)

Foysol Choudhury (Labour, Lothian)

7. To ask the Scottish Government what support it is providing to small businesses through the cost of living crisis. (S6O-01490)

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

We understand the challenges that are facing small businesses, which have been exacerbated by the economic upheaval caused by the United Kingdom Government in recent weeks. We have in place an existing package of non-domestic rates reliefs worth over £800 million, which includes the UK’s most generous small business bonus scheme. However, the powers and resources that are required to tackle this crisis lie with the UK Government. We will continue to press it to do everything possible to help Scotland’s small businesses.

Foysol Choudhury (Labour, Lothian)

I thank the minister for that answer, and I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests. I have been contacted by business owners in the Lothian region, particularly those with restaurant businesses who have been operating for decades but now find themselves having to close for good thanks to the perfect storm of Covid, a staffing crisis and, now, the cost of living crisis. As that is happening across multiple sectors, does the Scottish Government share my fear that we might have preserved our economy through the worst of the Covid pandemic, only to see it hollowed out by the latest crisis?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I assure Foysol Choudhury that we absolutely share his fears and concerns about the impact of the cost of living crisis and rising energy bills on small businesses in Lothian and throughout Scotland.

Foysol Choudhury and I, along with others in the chamber, were at the Asian restaurant awards dinner last night, where we not only enjoyed fantastic curry and good company but heard from numerous small businesses in the hospitality and catering sector, including restaurants, about the enormous challenges that they face as a result of rocketing energy bills, bills for ingredients and other costs. The situation is very serious.

Of course, as recently as 27 October, the First Minister wrote to the new Prime Minister to stress the urgent need for clarity on what support will remain available for non-domestic consumers beyond April. We have committed to working with the business sector to explore how businesses can be supported with their energy costs, within our devolved powers. We are supporting Business Energy Scotland, and businesses should contact Business Energy Scotland for advice. We will do everything else that is within our powers to help.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Bill Kidd has a brief supplementary question.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

Many small businesses in Scotland face substantial pressures, as has been said. Can the minister provide any update on the Scottish Government’s latest engagement with the UK Government regarding the support that is available to small businesses to deal with those rising costs?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Bill Kidd makes a powerful and valid point. I reiterate that the First Minister has just written to the new Prime Minister about those issues, and we await a—we hope positive—response. I have no doubt that the Deputy First Minister will address some of those issues in his forthcoming statement.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That concludes portfolio questions.

Emergency Budget Review

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The next item of business is a statement by John Swinney on the emergency budget review. The Deputy First Minister will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interruptions or interventions.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Scotland is facing a cost of living crisis.

A combination of the impacts of Brexit, the aftermath of the pandemic and the energy crisis that has been fuelled by Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine has sent prices spiralling. Inflation is at a 40-year high, and the pressure on the finances of households and businesses is acute. Public services are facing demands—entirely legitimate demands—to make significantly enhanced pay offers to their staff.

As a Government, we have a duty to respond, but our ability to respond is limited by the inactivity of the United Kingdom Government and the financial restrictions of devolution. The budget of the Scottish Government is largely fixed. We have no ability to borrow to increase our day-to-day spending, our reserve funding is fully utilised and our income tax powers do not allow changes to be made during the financial year.

In August, we announced that we would undertake an emergency budget review to identify every possible penny to support the people of Scotland through the cost of living crisis, while maintaining a pathway to balancing the budget. On 7 September, I set out to Parliament the first of the hard prioritisation choices that had already been made and, today, I provide a further update on our progress through the emergency budget review process.

Since September, the crisis has deepened further. The inactivity of the UK Government gave way to calamity. The UK Government’s mini-budget sent shock waves through the markets, driving up borrowing costs for Government, businesses and households. So disastrous was the package of unfunded and uncosted tax cuts for the rich that not only did the mini-budget not survive the month, but neither did its architects—the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister.

That utterly needless upheaval has created significant damage for individuals and great uncertainty for Scotland’s finances. Initially, the Scottish Government was told that we would receive an additional £660 million through the block grant adjustment. Now, with the new chancellor scrapping the plan to cut the basic rate of income tax in the rest of the UK, our funding will be reduced by £230 million over the period of the UK spending review. That represents a swing of almost £900 million in the space of less than a month. Now, under a new Prime Minister and a new chancellor, calamity is giving way to austerity, with deep spending cuts expected.

As members will be aware, I had intended to present the outcome of the emergency budget review to Parliament last week, but I paused that announcement while we awaited the fiscal statement of 31 October. However, that date has now been changed to 17 November. Although I would have preferred to see the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts and the outcome of the UK statement prior to publishing the review, I have concluded that we can wait no longer. The scale of the challenge is so severe, and the impacts and uncertainties for people, households and businesses so significant, that the imperative consideration must be to provide as much stability, certainty and transparency as possible.

We now also, once again, face the prospect of tax changes from the UK Government. It is only right that we take the appropriate time and care to consider any impacts on our budget and devolved tax policies, so I will wait until after the UK Government’s next fiscal statement before deciding on the content of any tax discussion paper.

I cannot overstate the degree of challenge associated with undertaking this emergency budget review. I have said before that, in all my experience now and during my previous tenure as finance secretary, there has never been a time of greater pressure on the public finances.

Inflation means that, today, our annual budget is worth £1.7 billion less than it was worth when it was published last December. At the same time, demand for Government support and intervention is, understandably, increasing. I must balance the books, but I am committed to doing so in a way that prioritises funding to help families, to back business, to provide fair pay awards and to protect the delivery of public services. This emergency budget review delivers on those objectives.

The Scottish Government is determined to enhance pay and target support at the lowest paid, where possible, as a crucial part of our response to the cost of living crisis. That support includes offers in the region of 7 per cent for front-line workers in the local government non-teacher and national health service agenda for change workforces, which would increase salaries for the lowest-paid staff in agenda for change by more than 11 per cent.

Although some pay negotiations have still to conclude, I have already committed more than £700 million of additional resources to fund enhanced pay settlements. I am grateful for the efforts of employers and trade unions in facilitating those vital collective bargaining processes, but—and I make this absolutely clear—every additional penny for pay has had to be found from existing, previously agreed allocations elsewhere in the current finite Scottish budget. We have reached the limit of what can be done in terms of reprioritisation.

When I set out the initial package of £560 million of savings for 2022-23, I was clear that additional savings would be required. Today, I have published an emergency budget review that sets out a further £615 million in savings, including £400 million from reprioritisation of spend within health and social care to provide a fair pay offer for NHS staff and to meet the extraordinary pressures of inflation and demand as the service begins to recover from the pandemic. That has included rephasing some social care spending in line with expected spending profiles and repurposing spend in other areas such as mental health.

Despite that, we continue to progress our work to deliver a national care service as well as commitments to fair work and adult social care, and we continue to provide overall increases in mental health spending as well as the delivery of dementia, learning disability and autism services and cross-cutting trauma work. Those are extraordinarily difficult choices that no Government wishes to have to make, but the full balance of health and social care reprioritisation will remain within the portfolio. A further £33 million of resource savings and £180 million of capital reductions have also been made, including reducing our marketing expenditure to below pre-Covid levels.

Taken together, those decisions and those already set out in September total almost £1.2 billion. They are not decisions that we would wish to make, but in the absence of additional funding from the UK Government, they are decisions that we are compelled to make. They ensure a path to a balanced budget, while prioritising fair public sector pay offers and recognising that that is critical to the delivery of key public services.

This Government will always do what we can to support those most affected by the cost of living crisis. I can confirm that we have identified and allocated the resources required to double the value of the December Scottish child payment bridging payment, benefiting around 145,000 school-age children who are registered to receive free school meals; to double the fuel insecurity fund to £20 million; to increase funding to local authorities for additional discretionary housing payment support to mitigate the UK Government’s benefit cap as fully as possible within our devolved powers; to introduce a new £1.4 million island cost crisis emergency fund; to introduce new payment break options to help protect those who have taken control of debt through the highly successful debt arrangement scheme; and to implement reforms to remove cost burdens for the most financially vulnerable.

In our efforts to support business, we have looked closely at regulation and how we can make it easier for businesses to thrive, and we have used today’s review to set out a range of improvements. After extensive engagement with business organisations, industry groups and individual businesses, including industry summits on energy and financial services, we will introduce a range of measures that are set out in the emergency budget review. They include building on the additional £300,000 provided to Business Energy Scotland this year by doubling the energy efficiency cashback element of the loan and cashback scheme to £20,000; protecting the small business bonus scheme, which is the most generous scheme in the UK and takes more than 111,000 business out of rates altogether; and establishing a joint task force with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, local authorities, our regulatory agencies and business to consider the differing impacts of regulation on business.

Alongside our counterparts in Wales and Northern Ireland, we have repeatedly called on the UK Government to do more, given the considerably greater flexibility available to it. The First Minister reiterated those calls to the latest Prime Minister, highlighting the essential need to provide further targeted financial support to low-income households, to urgently provide clarity on what support will remain available for both non-domestic consumers and households following the early end to the energy price guarantee next March and to make additional funding available so that devolved Governments can support people, provide fair public sector pay uplifts and protect public services.

The First Minister has also reiterated our deep concern about the risk of social security benefits not being increased with inflation in April. A permanent £25 uplift to universal credit should be introduced now, alongside the reversal of the two-child limit for universal credit and tax credits and the abolition of the benefit cap. We have been clear that an enhanced windfall tax should fund that support in place of increased borrowing or spending cuts.

We are now anticipating a package of eye-watering cuts and tax rises in the autumn statement. It will be evident to all members that the emergency budget review has involved extremely difficult decisions. Even when such decisions need to be made quickly, as is the case now, it is essential that we use the best available evidence and be as transparent as possible.

To that end, I thank the members of our expert panel for the consideration and advice that they have provided over recent weeks, and which I publish today. The panel has assessed the outlook that faces the Scottish Government in its budget and advises the Government to proceed with caution to achieve its objectives in these difficult days.

In addition, I have published a new analytical report on the impact of the cost of living crisis in Scotland alongside a high-level summary of the evidence on the equality and fairness impacts of the emergency budget review measures. The outlook for 2023-24 and beyond is clearly even more difficult than it was when we set out the resource spending review earlier this year, and measures of efficiency and reform in the delivery of our public services will be even more important.

Nonetheless, I assure Parliament that this Government remains firmly committed to and focused on continuing to support our public service recovery from the impacts of Covid, on tackling and reducing child poverty, on taking forward our net zero ambitions and on supporting strong and sustainable growth in our country.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The Deputy First Minister will now take questions on the issues raised in his statement. We have slightly overrun, but I still intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions, after which we will need to move to the next item of business. I encourage members and, indeed, the cabinet secretary to be as succinct as possible in their questions and answers. Those who wish to ask a question should press their request-to-speak buttons now, if they have not already done so.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the cabinet secretary for prior sight of his statement, and I also acknowledge the difficult circumstances in which the Scottish Government finds itself. Some of them are obviously international and some have been domestic, and I fully acknowledge that part of the difficulty is the timing of the forecasts and the budget. Those are substantial difficulties for the cabinet secretary, and I fully understand why he cannot say a bit more about tax policy just now.

The

cabinet secretary is always challenging the Opposition parties to come up with budget suggestions of their own—and rightly so. Here is one. Indeed, the cabinet secretary refers to it himself at the bottom of page 2 of his statement, where he talks about health and social care.

Does he really think that now is the appropriate time for his Government to be proceeding with a national care service bill that has drawn so much criticism from virtually every stakeholder and which Audit Scotland predicts will cost £1.3 billion?

Secondly, the cabinet secretary has also outlined further cuts to health, education and justice. Why have no further cuts been made to the constitution budget?

Thirdly, the cabinet secretary has also outlined some measures that he has agreed with business—I think that they are on page 3 of his statement. Will he tell us what specific measures will be put in place to boost productivity, which, as he confirmed at the Finance and Public Administration Committee, is a serious issue that undermines the tax take in Scotland?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I think that what Liz Smith was trying to get out at the beginning of her contribution was an acknowledgement of the difficulties created for me not just by the timing decisions but by the decisions of the United Kingdom Government. Allow me to complete that sentence for her.

In relation to the national care service, we have a very high level of delayed discharge in our hospital system, and it is putting enormous strain on the delivery of the national health service. We have to recognise and acknowledge the necessity of reform, because the current arrangements are not working. Therefore, we have had to take steps to establish a national care service for two reasons: first, to ensure that members of the public in all parts of the country are assured about the quality and range of care that will be available to them, and, secondly, to ensure that we are able to support the sustainability of the national health service. That is why that expenditure is required.

As for the question about the constitution budget, I suspect that that was code for Government’s commitment to spending £20 million on a referendum on independence. I point out to Liz Smith that that expenditure does not arise in the current financial year, and it is the current financial year that I am wrestling with to the greatest extent.

Lastly, in relation to productivity, I have announced a set of savings that are being made, but at the same time, I am protecting very significant levels of public expenditure on skills, universities and the college sector to ensure that we can invest in developing the capability of individuals in our society to maximise their economic contribution.

The biggest single thing that would help with productivity in this country is having a sensible approach to population growth and migration, but that has been abruptly halted for us by the total folly of Brexit. If I could appeal to Liz Smith and the Conservatives about anything—

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Social care.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The health secretary mentions social care. The social care sector has lost thousands of employees because of Brexit. We need to have a sensible discussion about migration, because the behaviour of the Conservative Government, and especially of the Home Secretary in recent days, is directly undermining productivity in the Scottish economy.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I encourage the cabinet secretary to ignore sedentary interventions from members of his party or from members of Opposition parties.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

Where there are additional measures on the cost of living in the statement, I welcome them. There is no doubt that the chaos that is emanating from the UK Government makes a challenging situation much more difficult, but in turn, that underlines the need for clarity and transparency from both the Scottish and UK Governments.

Proportionately, which portfolios have the largest savings to make against the budget that was passed earlier this year in order to achieve the £1.175 billion-worth of cuts that were announced? As confirmed by the Scottish Fiscal Commission in paragraph 34 of its May forecast, the Scottish Government had planned to carry forward £279 million from this year’s budget to next, and £250 million to 2024-25 using the reserve. Is that still the case, and if not, how have those sums been allocated, and what are the impacts on next year’s budget and the budget in the following years?

I am sure that the cabinet secretary agrees that we must all tighten our belts, but I note that the Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution, External Affairs and Culture has travelled to eight countries in as many months, clocking up almost 22,000 air miles. What cost control measures are being applied to the expenditure of members of the Government and civil servants?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The steps that the Government takes on clarity and transparency are evident from the fact that I am here today and that I appeared before the Finance and Public Administration Committee several weeks ago in an evidence session on the subject, which was chaired by Mr Johnson. I also appeared in Parliament in early September to explain openly the changes and the choices that I was making, so on the question of transparency, this Government is delivering on what would be expected by the public.

I have not approached the matter from the perspective of applying a random reduction across portfolios. I have had to look, at this very advanced stage of the financial year, at what options remain available to me to reprioritise spending. There is more scope to do that in some areas of Government activity than in others. In the case of the changes in relation to health and social care, I was absolutely clear with the health secretary that whatever savings we were able to identify would be retained in that portfolio to support the very strong pay offer that has been made, particularly for low-income staff.

In relation to the reserve, we have carried forward the resources from the last financial year into this year that we had planned to carry forward. Obviously the budget for next year was predicated, in the resource spending review, on a carryover from this year into next. I have yet to identify those resources. That remains an on-going challenge to meet before the end of the financial year, and I am still working to ensure that I can balance the budget this year, which is my statutory duty.

On the question about the Government’s international engagement, we cannot be insular and have to be in contact with the rest of the world. I am quite sure that it is important that we maintain dialogue. The Prime Minister was criticised only yesterday for not going to the 27th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—I am delighted that he is now going. International dialogue is essential for every Government, including the Scottish Government.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I encourage members to listen to not only the questions but the answers.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

Make no mistake, we are here in large part because of the calamitous decisions by the Conservative Government. It has added hundreds of pounds to people’s mortgages, and that is unforgivable, which is why we need a general election.

However, the choices that the Scottish Government has made are manifestly wrong as well. Irrespective of when the £20 million is allocated for, we are still spending civil service time and money on the production of constitutional papers, £17 million on national testing every year and up to £1 billion on the ministerial takeover of social care, and all the while councils are being squeezed to the pips, long Covid sufferers continue to struggle and £38 million is being stripped from the mental health budget. On that last point, I ask the Deputy First Minister this: what has changed in the severity of the national mental health crisis that he can find that amount of money to cut from the mental health budget?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Let me address two points that Mr Cole-Hamilton made. Local authorities will get significantly more resources, as a consequence of the reprioritisation exercises that I have gone through, to support very strong pay deals that are assisting local government employees on low incomes. I am sure that Mr Cole-Hamilton welcomes that.

I acknowledge the significance of the question on mental health. Indeed, in my dialogue with the health secretary we have both been determined to ensure that we protect mental health services as much as we possibly can. What has been announced today will mean that the resources allocated to mental health are not increasing as fast as we had planned; they will still grow, but not as fast as we had hoped. I am not going to minimise the significance of that decision, but it came about because I have limited options at this stage in the financial year and it is an indication of the severity of the situation that we face in public expenditure that I have had to take decisions of that type. As I said in my statement, I would prefer not to take that decision, but I have to fulfil my duty to balance our resources in this financial year and to ensure that I can support employees—particularly those on low incomes—in dealing with the cost of living crisis that they all face.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Does the Deputy First Minister agree that the emergency budget review is stark about the difficulties caused by inflation eroding the Scottish budget, the limited fiscal powers of the Parliament and the refusal of the UK Tory Government to either increase the resources available to Scottish ministers or devolve the powers that are necessary to deliver for the people and communities of Scotland in these challenging times? Also, can he advise of his engagement with business and trade unions throughout the emergency budget review process?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

We have taken forward a number of discussions with business and trade unions. I have held round-table discussions with businesses and I met a range of trade unions to hear their views and perspectives on those questions, which have informed the conclusions that we have come to.

Mr Gibson made a key observation about the limited scope that I have to take a different course of action, because the budget for each financial year is largely fixed unless the UK Government changes its position—

obviously, I have made the case to the UK Government to recognise the unprecedented effect of inflation in this financial year. There has been no financial year under devolution in which we have come anywhere close to the inflationary pressures that we face now, and that merits an intervention, which I have asked the UK Government to undertake.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We have eight further members wishing to ask questions in the remaining seven and a half minutes, so we will have to speed up both the questions and the answers, Deputy First Minister.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The Scottish Government has received specific Barnett consequentials this financial year for things such as the UK Government’s housing support fund. However, the Scottish Government has not always been transparent on how that money has been spent. Will the Deputy First Minister commit to publishing information on how the Scottish Government has spent all consequential funding that it has received throughout this financial year?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

How consequential funding works is that the UK Government takes its decisions, the money is transferred to the Scottish Government and we publish our budget plans in extraordinary detail, with the autumn budget revision and the spring budget revision, to give a complete picture during the financial year. Mr Arthur will be going to committee shortly, once the autumn budget review is published, to explain its contents, and I have come to Parliament with two additional substantive financial statements—in early September and today—transparently setting out what the Government is doing with all the resources that are available to us.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

Can the Deputy First Minister confirm that this statement is based on the assumption that Westminster will not either increase or decrease our block grant in the current year, 2022-23? If it was to do that on 17 November, what would happen?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

This statement is predicated on our receiving neither an increase nor a decrease in the funds that we expect to receive from the United Kingdom Government. That risk is not just apparent on 17 November; it extends to the moment at which the United Kingdom Government undertakes its supplementary estimates, the date of which I am not yet certain.

There is risk involved in all of that. There could be an upside; equally, however, there could be an downside. I have to take decisions to properly set out the budget choices that the Scottish Government is making. At times, I have to do that without the complete picture of information that would ordinarily be available to me.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

I note the Deputy First Minister’s comments regarding the potential impact of the imminent UK fiscal statement on our devolved tax policies and his intention to wait until we hear that statement before considering further discussion on tax, but I wish to push him ever so slightly on this point. There are a number of underutilised devolved tax options that we should be fully considering, which could generate revenue to invest in the areas that have been outlined today, which are stretched so thin. Will the Deputy First Minister commit in principle to a comprehensive review of devolved tax policy within the gift of the Scottish Parliament, following the UK Government’s fiscal statement?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I have to do that, because I have to set tax rates on an annual basis, so that will be undertaken. If there are particular propositions that Mr Sweeney would like me to consider, I would be very happy to receive them in writing, or I could meet him and hear the points that he would like to put to me.

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

The cabinet secretary is faced with two aspects of risk that are of particular concern. First, there is the uncertainty created by chaotic UK Government economic policies. Secondly, there is the undoubted harm that is about to be inflicted on the average citizen come the autumn statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That the chancellor has taken advice from George Osborne, the architect of austerity, is no comfort on either front.

Can the cabinet secretary indicate the basis of discussions with the latest UK chancellor? Indeed, has he been consulted by him at all?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I have had an initial discussion with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on the approach to the statement on 17 November. That did not in any shape or form cover substantive details. I have been promised substantive engagement before the UK statement, and I will make myself available for any such dialogue at any opportunity.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

Further to that answer, what response has the cabinet secretary received from the UK Government to the Scottish Government’s specific request that the financial settlement for the current year be inflation proofed?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I have not yet had a positive response to that, despite the fact that we have asked for that on a number of occasions. Kate Forbes asked for that issue to be addressed in the summer, before she went on maternity leave, and I reiterated that. The First Minister has also made that point, and I will continue to stress it. As I said in an earlier answer, this is a year quite without precedent regarding the scale of inflationary pressures.

Ordinarily, if inflation is at 2 or 3 per cent, that will not really cause much of a financial strain. However, if inflation is at 10 per cent, that will cause a real financial strain. This morning, the Criminal Justice Committee heard evidence from the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service about the issues that that public service is wrestling with.

The point that Mr Greer makes to me and which I will take to the UK Government is an entirely valid view.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

With the key levers to address the cost of living crisis in the hands of the UK Government, the Scottish Government is severely constrained in terms of the funding that is available to it to take action to support people in Scotland, including my constituents. Clearly, that shows the deficiencies of the current fiscal framework. Does the Deputy First Minister agree that, with the full suite of powers that are available to an independent country, this Parliament would have been able to mitigate and deal more fully with the cost of living crisis?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Clearly, there are constraints on what we are able to do, because our budget is largely fixed, due to the nature of the arrangements that we face. Mr McMillan makes the fair and reasonable point that there is a range of other powers and responsibilities that could be used to provide us with much greater flexibility in the challenges that we face.

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The Deputy First Minister has announced spending reprioritisation worth £400 million across the health and social care portfolio. That includes cuts to mental health and primary care spending. Has the Scottish Government carried out an analysis of the impact of those cuts on those receiving mental health treatment or primary care services, and can the cabinet secretary say where exactly that money is to be taken from?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

As I explained in my answer to Alex Cole-Hamilton, the issues will vary in different budget lines. In relation to mental health, the budget will not be increasing as fast as we wanted it to. In relation to some of the work around primary care, we will ask for reserve funding that is held by health and social care partners to be used as an early priority rather than it being retained while further strain is carried by public funds.

I point out to Mr Stewart that we are having to do that because of the severe financial pressure that is being applied to us due to the UK Government’s mismanagement of the public finances and the economy, with inflation having been allowed to rage rampant across our society.

Those are the hard choices that we have to address as we deliver on the expectations of members of the public. In relation to the impact on members of the public, we have published an equality impact assessment that addresses many of the issues that Mr Stewart raises.

Jackie Dunbar (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

The rising cost of living is having a substantial impact on families across Scotland and, so far, the UK Government has failed to provide any certainty to families on low incomes. Does the Deputy First Minister agree that the UK Government should give a clear commitment in its upcoming fiscal statement that social security benefits should be increased in line with inflation?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I think that that would help members of the public who are facing acute challenges. Obviously, we have taken decisions to boost the support that is available to families facing financial hardship, and I encourage the UK Government to do likewise.

National Care Service

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-06523, in the name of Craig Hoy, on national care service viability. I ask members who wish to participate to press their request-to-speak buttons now or as soon as possible.

I encourage members who are leaving to do so as quickly and quietly as possible.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

This Scottish National Party Government is setting out on the most radical reform of Scottish public services in the history of devolution, but ministers cannot deny that they have been warned about the risks around the establishment of a national care service. The Government has been warned by its own MSPs, Michelle Thomson and Kenneth Gibson; by charities, about the risks to continuity of care; by Audit Scotland, about the financial risks; by integration joint boards, about the risks to care across the country; by councils, about the risks to local democratic accountability; by care home providers, about the impact

on the independent and third sectors; by rural councils, which warn of the risks of creating a central belt-focused service; by health and social care partnerships, about the risks of proceeding with a framework bill when we know so little detail of the scope of the service; by alcohol and drug charities, about the impact on services for those with dependency issues; by unions, about the risks to workforce planning and development; by labour groups, about the risks to pay and conditions; by social workers, about the impact of detaching social work from local services such as housing and employability; by council chief executives, about the risks of shifting 75,000 council workers to a bloated bureaucracy; by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, about the risk of a grab on Holyrood’s powers of appointment; and by the legal profession, about the risks of losing cohesive responsibility for the care provided in complex cases. It has even been warned about the legality of pushing through sweeping changes in a framework bill and delegated legislation.

Despite those repeated warnings, the SNP Government continues to sail towards the iceberg. Humza Yousaf is still, apparently, supremely confident that he can captain the national care service, despite sinking Scotland’s national health service. Under the SNP, our NHS and social care systems are in crisis, so it is all the more reckless for this Government to embark on wholesale structural reform when urgent action is needed at the front line.

The minister is ignoring warnings about the crisis that he faces today. He simply dismisses criticisms of that reckless and unaffordable legislation. He ignores the present funding crisis in local government and social care. He dismisses concerns from a workforce that is underpaid, worn down and burned out. He overlooks the acute lack of staff and provision in care at home. He sets aside the skills and workforce crisis in residential social care and ignores the crisis in drug and alcohol services. Instead of taking concrete steps to properly fund social care at the local level, the SNP wants to embark on a massive restructuring, which will divert the millions that are needed to invest in staffing away from the front line and into the pockets of civil servants and administrators.

Why can the minister not see that social care organisations and unions are terrified about that misguided plan? Those bodies include the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, Unison, Community Integrated Care, NHS Lothian, Scottish Care, Parkinson’s UK, Highland Council, East Lothian IJB, the City of Edinburgh Council, Angus health and social care partnership, the MS Society and the Faculty of Advocates—the list goes on.

The SNP’s members have raised their heads above the parapet to express concerns about how the Government will fund its national care service. After destroying councils’ finances, it is looking to do the same to social care. Audit Scotland is warning that the already eye-watering predicted costs of £1.3 billion are likely to be an underestimate. Even after the framework bill has been published, big questions remain. How is a top-down system consistent with the Christie commission’s view that services must be designed “with and for people”? How will the system eradicate the postcode lottery in care? How will commissioning and collective bargaining work coherently and consistently on a national basis? How will care boards be comprised? Where will the democratic accountability be? What impact will that massive shift have on local authority budgets? If efficiencies are gained in the economy of scale that is achieved through the NCS, will they not be wiped out by the equivalent loss in economies of scale within local government? Where are the calculations on the cost savings that an NCS will achieve? The financial memorandum is very vague. What impact will the NCS have on capital investment in social care today? Councils are pulling back. Is it not the case that that power grab is likely to be an asset grab as well?

The nationalists have learned nothing from the shambolic centralisation of Police Scotland—a move that left the police service plagued by financial problems, a lack of accountability and cuts at the front line. The NHS is in crisis. The SNP has pushed our police service to the brink and is now determined to go the same way with social care.

Emma Roddick (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

The member mentioned the NHS, and I note that his party voted against the creation of the NHS 22 times.

Does he not recognise that people with lived experience fed into these proposals and are asking us to create the new public service?

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

The Conservative Party might not have given birth to the NHS, but Conservative Government after Conservative Government has nurtured it through good times and bad. That is why, today, in our motion, the Scottish Conservatives call on the SNP to scrap these wasteful plans and put every penny back into front-line social care.

We want to see a local care service that empowers communities. We want a change in culture and a change in delivery at the local level, with a service that is underpinned by a simple commitment to ensure that people access care in their local area, close to their family and close to their support networks. Centralisation poses risks not only to those who work in the care system, but to those who need care and the families that need to be around them.

The national care service poses a very real risk of an increase in cruel, out-of-area care that splits families from loved ones. The SNP falls back on one justification alone—that the reforms will create consistency—despite having no real plan to achieve it.

The only thing that is consistent about a national care service is the opposition to it. There is opposition from councillors, NHS boards, the unions and the workforce, charities, royal colleges and the independent and third sector. There is now opposition from normally supine SNP back benchers. However, there is a way out—the iceberg can be avoided. The SNP can urgently U-turn on a national care service and back our commonsense, local care-driven approach. Unless it does so, once again, overstretched care workers, vulnerable patients and their families will suffer.

I urge colleagues across the Scottish Parliament to support quality local care and to back our motion tonight.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the significant cross-party and cross-sectoral concern about the monumental risks involved in the creation of a National Care Service; warns that the financial memorandum to the Bill estimates that the creation of the service could cost up to £1.3 billion over five years and questions the accuracy of the Scottish Government’s estimates currently before the Parliament; raises concern about the rationale for creating a National Care Service through major structural reform at a time when social care is in crisis; acknowledges the considerable concerns from local government, trades unions and other industry stakeholders about the potential negative impacts of centralisation; believes that better value for money and better patient care will be achieved by directing investment into frontline provision and staffing rather than reorganisation, and calls for the creation of a Local Care Service focussed on better local delivery, underpinned by a local care guarantee.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I remind members that we are extremely tight for time and that they will need to accommodate any interventions in their time allocation.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

The bill sets out our clear principles for the future of a national care service, and it is against those principles that the bill should be scrutinised, the detail designed and the benefit monitored. We are not just suggesting change to address the challenges of today; we must build a public service that is fit for tomorrow.

Today, in Scotland, at least 232,000 people—one in 25—receive care support. Demand will only grow, and we need to recognise the risk of increased pressure on an already fragile system by acting now.

Our ambition for the national care service is to establish a social care system that not just enables people to survive, but empowers them to thrive. Health and care support is an investment, and it must work to remove barriers and tackle inequalities. The principles of any new system should be person centred, with human rights at the very heart. That means that the NCS must be delivered in a way that respects, protects and fulfils the human rights of people who access health and care support.

Another fundamental principle is inclusion. This morning, I visited Tiphereth, a Camphill community that is based in Edinburgh, to learn more about its work in supporting the life and work of adults with learning disabilities and autism. We must get it right for everyone. We have an opportunity to include many people across society in a conversation about their needs—a conversation that, traditionally, they have been excluded from.

I thank carers, both paid and unpaid, for their remarkable work to provide critical and invaluable support to people across our country. The cost of living crisis is having an impact on everyone in Scotland, including the social care workforce and unpaid carers. By working in collaboration with our partners, we want to see improvements in recruitment and retention, fair work and ethical commissioning.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

rose—

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

rose—

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

I do not really have time, but I will take Ms Smith’s intervention.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I will be quick. The minister has spelled out laudable aims, but why are so many stakeholders opposed to the bill?

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

There are stakeholders who are not content with all aspects of it, but I point out to members that it is about people, and, in the consultation, people backed the national care service overwhelmingly. It is about people—that is who we need to listen to.

We, as a Government, are fully committed to improving the experience of the social care workforce and increasing its levels of pay, as we recognise and value the work that those staff do.

The Government is taking action. From April, we provided funding of £200 million to local government to support investment in health and social care, to embed improved pay and conditions and to deliver a £10.50 an hour minimum wage for all adult social care staff in commissioned services from 1 April.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

rose

—

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

The Scottish Government has been leading the way in the United Kingdom to improve pay and terms and conditions. I am shortly due to chair an event with COSLA, unions and providers to discuss how we will work together to make further improvements now. Government alone cannot do that, but we can make significant improvements by working with all our partners.

The principle of financial sustainability is set out in the bill. We must ensure that we can deliver continuity and security of service for those who access services.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Will the minister take an intervention on that point?

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

The Government has already committed itself to increasing spending in social care by 25 per cent by the end of this session of Parliament, to lay the groundwork for the establishment of a national care service.

Through plans for an ethical commissioning framework, we will ensure that there is increased financial transparency, allowing us to prioritise quality of care and to understand better cost and profit across the mixed economy of providers.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

I have a lot to get through, so I will not take Ms Baillie’s intervention.

We must reintroduce a focus on early intervention and prevention. We must limit the number of people who end up in crisis. People want and need quality services that are delivered at a time and by a method that best suits their needs and that builds on their strengths.

Last week, I met representatives from the Fife social work team and heard about its social work off the books initiative, which delivers in the Pathhead and Dysart areas of Kirkcaldy. That community approach aims to reduce crisis care. It is critical that we learn from existing good practice from across the country.

The National Care Service (Scotland) Bill sets out a framework for change. The detail relies on us all, including those of us here in the chamber today as well as those outwith it, working together.

We need to grasp the opportunity to deliver public service improvement together, to ensure that we are getting the detail right for everyone. Such an approach requires trust and confidence in each other and in the process. We need to recognise the implementation gaps between legislation and delivery that the independent review highlighted.

I have been honoured to chair the social covenant steering group over the past 12 months. It will be critical in holding us to account for maintaining the priority of the voices of lived experience in the design phase.

People confirmed to us that they are supportive of the proposals in last year’s consultation. The sooner we start, the sooner we can deliver better care support for everyone.

I move amendment S6M-06523.3, to leave out from “notes” to end and insert:

“that the experience of the COVID-19 pandemic highlights the imperative for the National Care Service (NCS) to end the postcode lottery in the provision of adult social care; believes that there must be a rights-based, user-led approach to social care with consistent and fair access to high-quality care and support; further believes that the NCS should embed ethical commissioning that promotes fair work and climate change ambitions; recognises that the key consideration is how improvements are made for people who rely on the services of the NCS; welcomes that the NCS will be shaped by co-design and that services will be delivered locally; supports the creation, in line with the recommendation of the Independent Review of Adult Social Care, of a system of national collective bargaining on pay, terms and conditions within the social care sector and for workforce representatives, such as trade unions, to be involved in the governance of the service, including through full membership of Local Care Boards; notes that, in establishing the NCS, including any transfer of financial resources from local authorities to reformed integration boards, the Scottish Government should take into consideration the impact on local authorities’ ability to resource and deliver other services; understands that the UK Government’s mismanagement of the economy has heaped more pressure on care providers who were already adversely affected by the consequences of Brexit, and recognises the importance of local authorities, health boards, and the Scottish Government working constructively together to deliver improvements to social care in the interim, while mitigating the impact of the UK Government’s actions.”

Paul O'Kane (Labour, West Scotland)

More than a decade ago, the Scottish Labour Party called for the creation of a national care service. Our vision was rooted in a belief that social care could be transformed to deliver exceptional national standards of care across Scotland. That is about changing the culture, not the structures, by ensuring that our social care system treats people with dignity and by ensuring that our care staff are respected as skilled professionals. Sadly, the Scottish Government’s proposal lacks substance, lacks vision and, increasingly, lacks the confidence of key stakeholders, including trade unions, COSLA, care providers and staff who are working on the front line.

At yesterday’s Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, COSLA’s health and social care spokesperson, Councillor Paul Kelly, clearly outlined on behalf of councils across Scotland—of all political stripes, including SNP-led councils—huge concerns about what the bill would do to local government. It would take away power from local communities and place it in the hands of ministers, who would then use secondary legislation to design the national care service. He raised concerns that many councils might become unviable.

I and the Scottish Labour Party have serious concerns about the Scottish Government’s vision of the national care service. If the minister will not listen to me, perhaps he will listen to his own colleagues, who are also losing confidence in their Government’s ability to deliver what it has promised.

At last week’s Finance and Public Administration Committee, Kenny Gibson compared the Government’s approach as being akin to using a

“sledgehammer to crack a nut.”—[

Official Report

,

Finance and Public Administration Committee

, 25 October 2022; c 24.]

He also mentioned the “monumental risk” in relation to the financial memorandum and the lack of detail therein.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Paul O'Kane (Labour, West Scotland)

I have a lot to get through, so I want to make some progress.

The loss of confidence in this proposal has been growing, week on week. That is why, today, Scottish Labour is calling for the bill for to be paused. Let me be clear: this is not about trying to get one over on the minister or opposing for the sake of opposing. What we are debating is far too important for that. This is about a fundamental principle—the principle of good lawmaking—and creating a national care service that is worthy of the name.

It is irresponsible to press ahead with legislation that is not fit for purpose and that does not command the confidence of key stakeholders. We cannot afford to get these reforms wrong. Indeed, we have had 15 years of this Government ignoring social care. Half-baked solutions will only deepen the problems in the sector.

Presiding Officer, if Emma Harper wants to speak, I am happy to give way.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

Fantastic. I thank the member for taking an intervention. I just want to ask Paul O’Kane, as a member of the Health and Sport Committee—which I am as well—whether he would concede that we are just two sessions into the scrutiny of the bill

and that there is time to submit changes and to take evidence. Everybody is dumping on this right now, as though there is a massive issue with it. Do we not need to take the time to scrutinise it and allow all the voices to come out?

Paul O'Kane (Labour, West Scotland)

What I recognise is that the Government has been talking about this and consulting on it for months. I recognise that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, in its evidence, said that it found out about the Government’s framework legislation proposals on the night before they were published. I do not think that that is acceptable, and I think that there are growing calls from across all sectors to take a pause and reflect.

I say again to the minister that, if he will not learn from me and does not want to listen to me, perhaps he should learn from John Swinney. In 2018, the Deputy First Minister listened, reflected and took the sensible decision to pause the Education (Scotland) Bill when he recognised that stakeholders had serious concerns about the move to legislation. The process that flowed from that was co-designed with councils, teachers, parents and staff, and it is the reason that we have the improvement collaboratives that we recognise today.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Will Mr O’Kane give way?

Paul O'Kane (Labour, West Scotland)

I am running short of time, as I am into my final minute. I am sure that the minister will be able to raise his point in his concluding remarks.

The Scottish Government needs to go back to the beginning of this process to substantively and meaningfully engage with the key stakeholders in co-designing legislation. In the meantime, let us get to work on improving social care right now. As a first step, the Scottish Government should immediately act on the key recommendations of the Feeley report, including by removing non-residential care charges and tackling poverty pay in the social care sector. It is clear that we do not need to wait for a national care service to begin to address these problems. Indeed, we have been making that argument from the Labour Party benches for many months. The Government could take action here and now to improve the social care sector if it had the political will to do so.

What the Scottish Government is proposing is, in its current form, a national care service in name only. The Scottish Labour Party aspires to see a properly funded and well-planned national care service. That means local delivery while maximising standards, making it a race to the top by forcing bad actors who do not deliver high levels of service out of the system. The Scottish Government must listen and reflect on the growing worry of stakeholders, including trade unions, front-line staff and local authorities, and it must show some humility. It is time for the Government to pause and to meaningfully listen and properly engage, so that we can create the national care service that Scotland deserves.

I move amendment S6M-06523.2, in the name of Jackie Baillie, as an amendment to motion S6M-06523, in the name of Craig Hoy, to leave out from “raises concern” to end and insert:

“; recognises that Scottish Labour first proposed a National Care Service over a decade ago with the aim of improving national standards for social care, while also supporting local delivery and accountability; regrets that, instead, the Scottish Ministers have published a bill that is completely lacking in a vision for a National Care Service; acknowledges the serious concerns from local government, trades unions and other stakeholders about the potential negative impacts of centralisation; considers that meaningful reform should focus on changing culture and not structures, so that care users are treated with dignity and staff are valued as skilled professionals; believes that the immediate priority must be to address the current challenges in social care, and calls on the Scottish Government to pause the bill and take stock, and urgently deliver on the recommendations in the Feeley Review, including ending non-residential care charges, and to tackle poverty pay in the sector, in the midst of the cost of living crisis.”

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

I am pleased to rise for the Scottish Liberal Democrats, and I am grateful to Craig Hoy for securing the debate.

Words matter. What we call things matters. In the nomenclature around the national care service, the Government has sought to dress it up as our most treasured national possession. It is small wonder, then, that the public response has been to regard it as a mirror image of that thing that they, and we all, hold so close, but it is anything but that. The NHS was forged out of the rubble and poverty of war. It is free at the point of delivery. Nothing of that is emulated in the proposed national care service. The Liberal Democrats have made no secret of our opposition to the plans from the very start.

The SNP-Green Government has stood and watched the disintegration of our health and social care sector—this is on their watch. Instead of taking the immediate action that is so desperately needed across the sector, it has responded with an ill-fated, bureaucratic exercise, which is already turning into a mess.

Even I am surprised at how quickly the wheels have come off the wagon. Already, legal experts, auditors and council officials have slammed Government plans. This week, the chief executive of East Ayrshire Council said that local authority leaders

“have no certainty ... on what services are going to look like in the next three to four years”,

and he described the current circumstances as “truly unstable” for social work and social care.

As we have already heard, at this week’s Finance and Public Administration Committee meeting, officials described uncertainty about how much the plans would cost, and there was a suggestion that the cost could spiral beyond the Government’s estimate of £1.3 billion.

The alarm has even been raised from within the SNP’s ranks—we have heard something of that this afternoon—in a rare act of dissent among the collective, although that is becoming a little more common these days.

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

I want to put it on the record, as somebody who raised some of those points, that I am absolutely in favour of the national care service. It is the kind of audacious and ambitious project that we should be doing. However, I am carrying out my function of financial scrutiny, and other parties, such as the Tories, would do well to heed that.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

I can only imagine that Michelle Thomson’s mobile phone must have been red hot between the time that she made her remark that she had “no confidence whatever” and the intervention that she has just made. However, she said that and she said that she was completely surprised by the lack of detail in her Government’s financial memorandum. Sadly, it does not come as much of a surprise to the rest of us.

Many of us have rightly questioned the wisdom of spending huge amounts of money on structural reorganisation rather than supporting hard-working staff.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Will the member give way?

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

I am afraid that I must make progress, as I have only four minutes.

We must remember that, despite the incredibly important service that social care staff provide, they are among the lowest paid in our society. As a result, the cost of living crisis is hitting them the hardest and more must be done to help them. If we do not do that, they will leave the sector and seek fairer pay, and who could blame them?

No one is arguing that change and reform are not required. Of course they are needed, but we must have good change and genuine reform. Staff and service users need that change now, not in five years’ time when this bureaucratic monolith is finally set up. Were Liberal Democrats in government in Scotland right now, we would reward staff with better pay, better conditions, career progression and powerful national collective bargaining. We would set out national standards to get rid of the postcode lottery that currently exists in social care so that everyone had the same level and quality of care no matter where they live. Instead, the Government wants to remove power from local service providers, who know best how to use it, and place it in the hands of Government ministers, who have proven themselves to be incompetent time and again.

The playwright George Bernard Shaw once said:

“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.”

The Government would do well to heed that lesson before things get worse. The Government’s plans could not have been more poorly thought out, so I urge it to think again before it is too late.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We move to the open debate.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Last week, Jackie Baillie said that she has a long memory when it comes to parliamentary experience. Although I cannot compete with her on longevity, I can get quite close, and I certainly remember a couple of occasions when there were serious concerns about financial memoranda that were designed to underpin major pieces of proposed legislation. That happened with the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill and with college regionalisation. However, never in my time in the Scottish Parliament have I seen a financial memorandum that is so out of kilter with the ambitions of a bill and so lacking in detail.

Michelle Thomson and Kenny Gibson were spot on last week, and Michelle Thomson is spot on again this afternoon, in saying that they have a duty of scrutiny—they do. They said that it is not possible to have confidence in the financial memorandum and that it is a “monumental risk” to taxpayers. That is not a good place for the Scottish Government or the Parliament to be in. When it comes to scrutiny of the bill, the financial memorandum certainly does not adhere to the request from Audit Scotland to ensure that we have more accurate financial memoranda accompanying proposed legislation.

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

In fairness, will Liz Smith concede that the larger and more audacious and ambitious a project is, the more difficult it is to achieve accuracy at the point in time when the financial memorandum is produced? I know that from my business experience of delivering large-scale transformational programmes.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

During my time in the Parliament, which now stretches to 16 years, I have never seen a financial memorandum that is so lacking in that regard. As Audit Scotland points out, a number of costs associated with the bill are yet to be assessed, including those relating to national care boards, transition costs, pensions, VAT and capital investment and maintenance costs. Those costs are surely extremely important and are of considerable concern to stakeholders.

The Fraser of Allander Institute has suggested that groups that tried to estimate the costs had to persistently question civil servants to find out the additional costs—those beyond the core costs that are mentioned in the financial memorandum. Virtually every stakeholder is asking those key questions, and I would have thought that that would be of considerable concern to the Scottish Government. I suggest that it is entirely the wrong way round to have a situation in which it is not possible to scrutinise enough of the bill. That is why COSLA, councils, trade unions and front-line staff in the public and private sectors are getting angry. They simply do not have the answers that they need.

Let me turn to the evidence that Ralph Roberts presented on behalf of NHS chief executives. He rightly cited the Scottish Government’s very welcome focus on improving social care, on developing better quality and consistency when it comes to data and on ensuring that some of the intense workforce pressures on the NHS are addressed. However, when he was asked about the extent of the restructuring, which is on a scale that is equivalent to major reforms such as the centralisation of the police force and college regionalisation, he was much more sceptical. He said that what is proposed by the Scottish Government is not supported by NHS chief executives at this time, when they are having to deal with other pressures and when all spare capacity is already being taken up. Mr Roberts suggested that we should consider other ways of tackling the issues at stake before this leviathan new structure is even contemplated, given that so many costs are unaccounted for.

People are asking whether the bill is necessary to deliver the desired ambitions, not just because of the current economic challenges but because of the extensive disruption that is likely to take place through structural change.

I have every support for the motion in the name of Craig Hoy.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

Here we go again with these Opposition debates, with members talking down the SNP Scottish Government’s commitments and, indeed, our hard-working NHS and social care staff. Such debates in this chamber are becoming wholly tiresome. Last week, it was Labour and, this week, it is the Tories. It is becoming increasingly harder to see the policy differences between the two better together parties as they come back together and make a massive muckle midden together in the lead-up to our indyref. Mibbes that is just what is going on.

Anyway, to dispel the drivel in the Tory motion, I note that the establishment of a national care service will be the most ambitious reform of public services since the creation of the national health service. The national care service, as proposed in the bill, will bring together social work, social care and community health to strengthen health and social care integration for adult services.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I accept the situation that the member has outlined, but does she really think that, given what stakeholders are saying, they are comfortable with the bill? Every one of them who has given evidence to the Finance and Public Administration Committee and spoken to us has said that they are not.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I know that at the heart of the bill is the idea of caring for human beings and looking after people whose verbal responses to the consultation indicated that they want a more joined-up service that brings all the care providers together.

By the end of the parliamentary session, accountability for adult social work and care support will transfer from the Government to ministers, who will be accountable.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I am sorry, but I dinnae have time. These wee four-minute speeches do not allow us to get on the record everything that we want to say, but I am happy to speak to any member after the debate if they seek a more detailed response.

The bill will increase transparency and standardise delivery of care to eradicate the current postcode lottery care system. Importantly, it will take the focus of social care away from today’s for-profit industry and will lead to a system that focuses on human rights and high-quality care.

Contrary to what the Tory motion states, the bill does not centralise social care. It is a framework bill, which means that other regulations will come after it—affirmative regulations that we will, again, be able to scrutinise. That means that it allows—

Paul O'Kane (Labour, West Scotland)

rose—

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I am sorry; I want to proceed, because I have particular points to make.

For example, regarding how the approach will work better, Dumfries and Galloway and the Scottish Borders are large, rural areas that require a bespoke approach to the challenges of distance and rurality. The bill allows for that, but ensures standards of care. Dumfries and Galloway and the Scottish Borders are separate areas with bespoke requirements, but certain standards will be matched nationally, which has to be welcomed, as it will ensure high standards of care.

I would have thought that the Opposition could get behind improving care standards and ensuring equity of care, but instead they simply continue to moan.

I turn to self-directed support, which I have worked on since my re-election. SDS allows people to receive money from their respective local authority, to be spent where people feel is most appropriate for them. That might be help with the management of a health condition or disability, help with buying technology, help with getting out and about, or even support for attending work or college. Over the summer, the minister came to Dumfries where we heard directly the lived experience of people who were receiving self-directed support.

That is all part of how we move forward—by engaging with and listening to people and through co-production with them in order that we have the best bill to take forward.

I realise that I am out of time, Deputy Presiding Officer. Thank you.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

I ask the members sitting opposite me to consider the fact that it is our responsibility as parliamentarians to debate the issues—we have that right. I hope that the member who spoke before me asks for some Government time so that we do not have to have short debates.

The bill on a national care service has promised a great deal but, with each passing month, the weight of that ambition has been forgotten. Instead of building a truly revolutionary service, the Scottish Government is tinkering around the edges of what the service would mean on the ground, while concentrating power in its own hands rather than in those of carers or people who require care.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I think that Carol Mochan is asking the Government to take information forward. We have just begun scrutiny. Will we not have a stage 1 debate, in which we will be able to debate the bill in the chamber again?

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

We have to scrutinise the bill, and part of that is for the Government to bring more debates to the chamber so that we can debate the issues more fully, which are important and on which people have concerns.

The national care service is a mere shadow of what a universal care service could be, and it does not, at this stage, seem worthy of the name.

The Scottish Government is not proposing a national care service in this plan; as it exists currently, it would lead only to a national procurement and commissioning service, dressed up in the language of radical change.

The profit motive is at the heart of everything in this plan, and the harsh reality of low pay and poor conditions for most workers are not set to change in any substantial way—there is no drive from the Government for collective bargaining or the improvement of pay and terms and conditions of the poorest-paid workers.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Will the member give way?

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

I will make progress, because I am running out of time.

As members might expect, I believe that, through their trade unions, workers understand the drawbacks better than most, yet very few of their concerns have been taken into account when drafting the bill.

Unison has, quite rightly, called the plans “not fit for purpose” and has asked for them to be recalled. I have a lot of sympathy for that position and share the view—made explicit in my party’s amendment—that the process must be paused immediately and that it requires the recommendations that are laid out in the Feeley review to be delivered as a priority. We can do that. If we do not take stock and allow for that to happen, we will create a service that, in essence, is set up to fail and built on the broken foundations of this care service.

The overt centralisation at the heart of the plan is designed to further disempower councils. Unite the union has expressed concerns about the proposal to hand power to

“unaccountable local care boards to deliver services”

with no democratic mandate.

It is clear that COSLA is firmly against the plans. It has stated that the Government is planning to remove

“decisions around locally delivered social care services ... from communities”

and hand them to

“Scottish Government Ministers in Edinburgh.”

That does not sound like a step forward to me; it sounds like an old-fashioned power grab that will put the future of many jobs firmly in the hands of ministers who are far away from what happens on the ground. Given the state of negotiations with public sector staff, we can understand why care staff and trade unions have serious concerns.

We are not here to simply tick boxes and say that a national care service has been built and then move on to the next manifesto promise. We are here to build something that, like the NHS, will stand the test of time.

I reiterate that the Government must pause the bill, listen to the concerns of carers, service users, councils, trade unions and MSPs, and get it right the first time round. Anything else would be a dereliction of duty.

Gillian Mackay (Green, Central Scotland)

I do not often tell personal stories in my speeches, but today I will repeat the story that I shared in my very first speech in the chamber.

My grandpa fell in his house shortly before the council elections in 2017. After that fall and his recovery, he required care in his home for the rest of his life. His carers were far more than help around the house—they enhanced and enriched his life. He loved to tell stories, and what his carers and, often, their families were up to became part of the stories that we were told. We knew that he was safe with them, and they often stayed to make us a cup of tea when we needed it, too. Words could never express how grateful I am to each and every one of them.

His experience, and the fact that not everyone has that experience, is what drives my approach to the national care service. We must ensure that people receive person-centred care. I acknowledge the anxiety about the lack of detail in the bill. Framework bills do not give the immediate certainty that is needed, but the bill provides people who receive care, their families and their care workers with the ability to offer input to how the service runs. Let us not pretend that our current system is one in which their voices are always heard. The bill gives us the chance to get things right.

Fair work must be at the heart of that. I was hugely frustrated to hear from my grandpa’s carers about the lack of holiday pay, sick pay and maternity pay, and even lack of consideration for something as basic as local knowledge.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Gillian Mackay (Green, Central Scotland)

I am really sorry, but I have a lot to get through.

I heard about carers being sent from one end of the local authority area to the other because a manager who did not know the area thought that the trip from Bo’ness to Larbert could be done in 10 minutes, only for the carers to come back to Grangemouth after that. Caring for care workers must be at the heart of the bill. That is why I will lodge amendments to further embed, at the heart of the bill, fair work as part of ethical procurement. I will work with the minister and unions to address concerns.

We know that there is a mixed picture across the country, but social care workers in Falkirk should have the same terms, conditions and working culture as those in Argyll and Bute. For people who receive the care, how they receive it and what they are entitled to should also be the same everywhere. That is a fundamental principle of the national care service and one of the main reasons why we want to see the bill progress.

Culture change must be a key part of any social care reform, and as I said in the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee meeting on Tuesday, culture change does not often come without huge costs attached. I agree with Mr O’Kane—as, I am sure, the minister does—that any of those issues could be tackled now. In the joint working group involving COSLA and the Scottish Government, I would like to see discussion and agreement on ways to do that and to advance it now.

In yesterday’s HSCS Committee meeting, we heard COSLA’s concerns about appointments to care boards being the minister’s decision. Might the minister address that in his closing remarks?

Paul O'Kane (Labour, West Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Gillian Mackay (Green, Central Scotland)

I am really sorry, but I need to keep going.

We can agree that there are some good things in the bill. We all recognise the importance of Anne’s law. I met campaigners outside Parliament, as did others from across the chamber. The pandemic robbed many people of their last precious hours and days. I want better and consistently offered bereavement support for unpaid carers, as well as support with manual handling and, crucially, the right to short breaks. We need to ensure that that is implemented consistently to ensure that breaks are available, in a way that is useful to them, for people who have multiple caring responsibilities.

In reality, there is too much to cover in four minutes. There are real opportunities through co-design and secondary legislation to be flexible, to listen, to take account and to change things that do not work as anticipated. I recognise the anxiety around the lack of detail, but I look forward to working with carers’ organisations, with people with lived experience and with care workers in order to ensure that the bill delivers on its core aim, which is to make things better and more consistent for people who use the social care system and people who work in it.

Jackie Dunbar (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

The Tory motion is, quite frankly, a disservice to the social care sector here in Scotland. The establishment of a national care service will be the most ambitious reform of public services since the creation of the national health service. The aim is to ensure consistent, fair and high-quality care for everyone in Scotland, thereby reducing the current variations that many folk have raised over recent years.

The Tory motion is simply wrong. A national care service is not about nationalisation of services.

The bill—maybe Tory members should actually read it—sets out that, at national level, the functions will be focused on consistency through national oversight. Services will continue to be designed and delivered locally. That is right in order to support delivery with and for our communities and the people whom those services serve.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Jackie Dunbar (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

I am sorry. I normally take interventions, but today I have only four minutes.

National oversight will allow for better sharing of good practice and innovation, which we know takes place right across our country. For example, for years Aberdeen City Council and Aberdeenshire Council have pooled resources to get best value, when possible. It can be done. The proposed changes will bring forward new power-sharing arrangements at national and local levels. They will deliver a mix of the clarity that people want on ultimate accountability and, crucially, they will deliver the flexibility to meet local needs, including the needs of our island and rural communities.

The Tory motion questions the Scottish Government’s financial estimates for the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill, as well as the rationale for it, but the bill follows the independent review of adult social care, which showed the need for change and recommended reform and strengthening of national accountability for social care. The review found that the current way of working has not fully delivered the improvements that it was intended would be achieved by integration of health and social care. It showed that the current approach to social care is simply not working, because the current system focuses on profit over people, and it said that that must change.[

Interruption

.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Mr Hoy!

Jackie Dunbar (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

The Tory motion appears to support the findings of the Feeley review, but it would deprive Parliament of the tools to deliver the change that is needed. The Tories’ so-called local care service would fail to address the fundamental issues of consistency, quality and access. It would add to the postcode lottery of care that the current system provides. For example, it would allow differences between delivery of care in Aberdeen Donside and delivery in Glasgow city. Perhaps in their summing up, the Tories could clarify how their plan would deal with the current postcode lottery, which they constantly complain about.

Any spending decisions that are made on the national care service will be backed by rigorous evidence-based decisions. The costs in the financial memorandum largely represent investments in service improvements and terms and conditions for our vital front-line care staff. Any suggestion that the figures relate exclusively to admin costs are totally false and misleading. The bill will also remove unwarranted duplication of functions, thereby providing best value for public funds, which is to be welcomed.

The creation of a national care service reinforces the Government’s wider commitment to taking long-term action to change our society and make it a fairer and more equal place in which to live, work and play.

We need to grasp this opportunity to deliver public service improvement together. I encourage the Opposition to work constructively with the Scottish Government on the bill. Let’s get this right for a’body.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

I am grateful to have the opportunity to contribute to today’s debate on the national care service and the crucial proposed legislation on it.

I have been engaged with local authorities on the matter for some time—in fact, I spoke to the chief executive of East Ayrshire Council, Eddie Fraser, on Monday in preparation for this debate.

First, it is important that, as a Parliament, we accept the current situation and work together to develop a solution to what is a continually developing crisis.

Health and social care in this country is in crisis; quite frankly, it is much worse than is being reported. Front-line staff are working flat out, way beyond what should be reasonably asked of them, to look after people who need healthcare. We are all truly thankful for everything that they do, but we cannot rely indefinitely on their good will.

Earlier this week, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care suggested that it will take five years to redress the current crisis. There are two things that I would say to that. Given that the issue existed long before Covid but has been exacerbated by it, the first thing that I would ask the cabinet secretary is, “Why didn’t you start to redress the problem five years ago?” Secondly, I say that it will take a lot longer than five years to get a fully functioning and fully staffed NHS and social care sector. That is a couple of decades away—four parliamentary sessions, so the Parliament in this session will not get the credit. A long-term strategy has to be put in place and initiated. Will the cabinet secretary be brave enough to put those wheels in motion?

Let us accept the situation that we are in and discuss it with a view to developing solutions. First, the social care sector says that it is an entity in itself, and its message is that it is not to blame for the current NHS issues. Childcare, child social care, adult social care and general social care are all part of the mix. Although we talk about a postcode lottery for social care, it is only when things go especially wrong that we hear about it. There are many positive outcomes across the country. The message from local authorities is that structural change is not required where things are not working. What is required is targeted support for areas that are struggling to deliver services. We should not throw the baby out with the bath water, but should instead learn from areas that are delivering really good services and apply that learning where improvement is needed.

There are substantial differences in how councils deliver social care, especially between rural and urban areas. Local authorities understand what dictates how services should be delivered, so the proposed SNP centralisation of services will not solve the current crisis. Where is the evidence that this is the path to take? Why does the SNP think that it knows better than local authorities, professional healthcare workers and the many stakeholders—as my colleague Craig Hoy said—who already deliver the services?

Finally, we need to retain staff. What is required is a system that is financed properly to account for the work that social care does through both public and private providers. Finance should also include provision to offer a decent pension, as part of the package. It must value our social care workers and ensure that staff retention is at the top of the agenda.

Social care is about relationship building and continuity of care to provide better patient outcomes. There is no evidence that a national care service will help the situation in any way. What is needed is a system-wide evaluation of health and social care that is designed for need, not demand. Social care being provided in the way that the SNP is proposing is not just unworkable; it is unaffordable.

Emma Roddick (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I found the motion to be quite puzzling. The Conservatives cannot seem to decide what point they are making—whether the issue at hand is getting good care to people who need it, or not spending public money on public services. I believe that the system should be about getting good care to people who need it.

“Postcode lottery” is a favourite term of the Conservatives, but today they are criticising the Scottish Government for taking forward proposals to create a national care service—an idea that is overwhelmingly backed by the public and would standardise care across the country—and are instead suggesting that we implement what is, essentially, a formal postcode lottery.

I am a Highlands and Islands MSP and I hate centralisation, but this is not centralisation. We can have national standards without centralising. From everything that I have heard so far about the proposals and the overall intention of this ambitious public sector overhaul, I am not worried that it is a power grab. The proposals are about combining national standards with local expertise to get rid of a postcode lottery.

As the bill takes shape, colleagues can count on me spending the rest of the process making sure that Highlands and Islands voices are heard and that their local expertise and local good practice—where it exists, and it does exist—are taken forward.

I have already heard extremely helpful, constructive and thoughtful input to the proposals from people with lived experience of caring or of receiving care. This is a huge opportunity, and it would be a real shame to chuck it out instead of putting in the work. As a Conservative colleague asked only minutes ago, why throw the baby out with the bath water?

Besides the fact that it is ridiculous to say that because the care sector is in crisis it is the wrong time to fix it, I find the brass neck of the Tories in talking about the care crisis at all astounding, because nothing has harmed care services recruitment more than Brexit, which their party forced on this country. Despite the best efforts of the Scottish Government, we are haemorrhaging EU nationals who worked, or would have worked, in those roles.

I mentioned earlier the fact that the Conservatives voted against the creation of the national health service—our NHS—22 times. I would have hoped that by now, in 2022, we would have got to the point at which we do not need a war to get folk behind us in looking after our citizens.

Out of interest, I looked up

Hansard

for the debate on the 1942 Beveridge report—which was not the first attempt at creating a national health service but was the beginning of the successful one—because I suspected, correctly, that there might be some similarities between that debate and today’s debate.

On 16 February 1943, Sir William Davison, a Conservative MP, questioned the cost of delivering that massive overhaul of social security, and asked:

“What about the millions of money for those who are not in want?”

Arthur Greenwood, of Labour, responded:

“They ought to thank God that they are in those happy circumstances”.

Scottish Unionist Charles MacAndrew also worried about the cost, and told the House:

“It does not satisfy me to be told that we cannot afford to be without it”—[

Official Report

, House of Commons, 16 February 1943; Vol 386, c 1620, 1646.]

However, I think that all of us here today agree that NHS Scotland is vital—that it is a core institution and that it is worth spending massive amounts of money on for the sake of saving and improving lives—and that we also agree that we cannot afford to be without it.

I encourage members to think about the following question when they speak. In 80 years, what will folk who are living in a country with a national care service think when they dig up some members’ comments in the

Official Report

, and will they be on the right side of history, this time?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We move to closing speeches. I note that some members who participated in the debate do not appear to be here. I will expect an explanation for that.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

As Paul O’Kane rightly stated, Scottish Labour called for the creation of a national care service more than a decade ago. It was rejected by the then health secretary, Nicola Sturgeon, but now the SNP has finally caught on to the idea. However, the SNP’s lack of understanding and vision has led to a pale imitation of what a national care service could be.

Demand for a national care service has never been greater as we emerge from the pandemic. Social care has been underfunded for too long, with the rationing of care based on budgets rather than on the assessing and meeting of need—and, ultimately, dealing only with crisis rather than with prevention. Social workers and social care workers have been holding together a system that is fractured and under strain.

Cultural change is needed. Let us liberate our social care professionals to do the jobs that they were trained to do—that is, to help people live independently, to focus on prevention and to meet need. Furthermore, let us fund it properly. Today, however, we have learned that £70 million has been reprioritised, which sounds like a cut to me. I will be happy to hear from the minister on that point in his closing speech.

The SNP lacks ambition and views a national care service as entirely about structural change with little, if any, new money on the table. A framework bill with no detail reminds me of the tale of the emperor’s new clothes—there is simply nothing there. It is simply not good enough to say that the details will be worked out later and to bring in sweeping changes by secondary legislation.

We believe in co-design and co-production—we share the Government’s view on that. However, that really needs to be done in advance of legislation, not after.

The bill should have laid out plans for the creation of the biggest publicly funded social care system since the creation of the NHS. It should have laid out a coherent vision for the future of care in this country—improving standards, investing in staff and enhancing care. However, it falls far short of that. It is so bereft of vision that millions of pounds have been paid in fees to private sector consultants to tell the Government what to do. We must listen to the experts—that is, those receiving care and their carers, or the many social care staff—but we must do so in advance.

We know what some of them think, though.

Social Work Scotland, which is the key professional body, has asked the Scottish Government to pause the bill and think again. Unison, which represents many social care workers, wants the bill not just to be paused but to be withdrawn. COSLA has made it clear that the wholesale transfer of staff must be removed from the plans entirely before it engages any further, and countless voluntary sector groups have major reservations about the proposals. I agree with Gillian Mackay’s comments about staff, and I am sure that she shares my disappointment that the bill is silent on all those issues.

Let me turn to money. The Finance and Public Administration Committee savaged the financial memorandum. It was only doing its job, because it did not think that the money stacked up. We have no idea, for example, whether VAT will have to be paid or what happens to pensions if people are transferred, because that is not covered. The committee was followed swiftly by Audit Scotland, which said that the financial memorandum is

“likely to significantly understate the margin of uncertainty and range of potential costs”.

It is clear that £1.3 billion is the tip of the iceberg. The Feeley review identified a funding gap of £660 million a year, but the Government is committing to only £800 million over three years. We cannot get decent social care on the cheap, and if the Government underfunds this from the start, it will fail. The Government should pause now and take the time to think this through and get it right, because we cannot afford to fail. There is a pressing need to do things now.

In closing, I say to Emma Harper and Jackie Dunbar that we want the bill to be the most ambitious reform of public sector services. As currently drafted, it is not. We want to work constructively with Government, but let us do the right and mature thing: pause the bill to strengthen it, because it is too important to fail. We need to get this right.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

The ultimate establishment of a national care service will be the most ambitious reform of public services since the creation of the NHS. It will end the postcode lottery of care provision, ensuring quality, fairness and consistency of provision that meets individuals’ needs.

A lot of the focus of today’s speeches has been on structures. The Government’s focus is on getting it right for people, which is why co-design lies at the very heart of what we are going to do to achieve the best possible national care service.

This is not about centralisation. The bill sets out that, at a national level, the functions of the service will be focused on consistency through national oversight. Services will continue to be designed and delivered locally; it is right to support delivery with and for our communities and the people whom they serve.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

Does Mr Stewart agree with COSLA that consistency does not necessarily mean an increase in quality of care?

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Consistency does not necessarily mean quality, but

what will bring quality is the national care standards, which will eradicate the postcode lotteries that Mr Hoy and his colleagues regularly moan about. I hope that at the very least they see the benefit of those national high-quality standards.

A change of this scale will take time. We will not rush the design process, and we will develop the detail in partnership with people who have experience of using the services, people who are delivering them on the front line and our stakeholders and partners. No decisions have been taken on whether children’s services, justice or social work should be included in the scope of the national care service. The Government is establishing a programme of evidence gathering and research to inform those future decisions.

This afternoon’s debate has allowed important contributions from across the chamber to be made on the proposals for a national care service. Some of them, including those from Gillian Mackay, Jackie Dunbar and Emma Harper, have been very positive and have had people at their heart. We also had a wee bit of a history lesson from Emma Roddick. History often repeats itself, and it is repeating itself on the Tory benches today.

We have heard repeatedly from people with direct experience of community health and social care and key stakeholders that the adult social care system needs to change in order to drive up standards to a consistent level across the country. The independent review referenced the current fragmented and dislocated system, and it is disappointing not to have heard more in the debate about the views of the people whom we represent.

Change of this scale naturally raises questions and concerns, and we have a duty to people to work through those with all of our partners, including local government, health and social care partnerships, unions and providers, to understand their position and use it to inform, design and, ultimately, deliver. I ask that all of us champion this, engage with it and contribute to the on-going discussion. My door is open to all, because we have a responsibility to people to get this absolutely right.

In order to support people to get involved in the discussion, we have identified a set of early co-design themes. They are information sharing; improving health and social care support; realising rights and recognising responsibilities; keeping health and social care support local; making sure that people’s voices are heard; and valuing the workforce. In September, we launched the lived experience panels to help us in that regard, and we have also established a stakeholder register for stakeholders to become involved in the co-design of our national care service. This is the biggest change since the formation of the NHS and we want to ensure that people are involved in its design.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Will the member give way?

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

I am in my last 10 seconds.

Community health and social care will, at some point, reach into all of our lives. Everyone should have high-quality services, regardless of where they live in Scotland, and I hope that everyone will join us in getting the national care service formation absolutely right.

Sandesh Gulhane (Conservative, Glasgow)

The Scottish Government needs to see sense and change its reckless and unaffordable plan to create a national care service. Prior to today’s debate, the plan has been described as

“a sledgehammer to crack a nut”

and

“a blank cheque”

from

“the public purse”—[

Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee,

25 October 2022; c 24, 16.]

by none other than the SNP’s own members on the Finance and Public Administration Committee. Moreover, the chief executive of Ayrshire Council described the SNP’s plan as “truly unstable” for social work and social care; the Scottish Human Rights Commission was critical of the “vague” and unhelpful language round the proposed charter of rights; and many more stakeholders have voiced their deep concerns.

Frankly, the SNP and the Greens are not speaking for those organisations, for the hard-working social care staff, for those receiving care and certainly not for taxpayers. The SNP and the Greens do not have their backs, and they do not speak for Scotland.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

When I leave today’s debate, I will be talking to Unison, and this morning, I spoke and listened to the Camphill communities. We have been out talking to the people at the forefront of care, both those who receive it and those who deliver it. No one can say that we are not listening, because we are.

Sandesh Gulhane (Conservative, Glasgow)

To be frank, I do not think that the minister is listening, because if he was, he would not be going ahead with this awful plan.

The SNP has spent years hollowing out our local councils with savage funding cuts. Indeed, we see that today in SNP and Green-run Glasgow,

which has a deficit 10 times higher than it was last year. The plans for a national care service would scrap local accountability; they impose total ministerial control; and they represent a direct assault on local government. Again, they would scrap local accountability.

The SNP’s plan for a national care service amounts to a blatant power grab. We agree that social care provision in Scotland is in crisis, but the last thing that we need right now is a major, bureaucratic overhaul of the system that would see precious resources diverted away from the front line into employing more management and more administration staff. The SNP needs to abandon these plans and put every penny into local care services, because we simply cannot afford to see £1.3 billion diverted away from the front line when we are crying out for help.

We support a local care service, because it is important to protect individual choice and control. No one should be forced to access care that is miles away from their community, family and support network. That is why our local care service would include a local guarantee that would ensure that support was delivered as close as possible to those who need it, especially those in rural and island communities.

Allow me to turn to some excellent points that have been made during the debate. Craig Hoy reminded the Parliament why the cabinet secretary and his ministers cannot deny that they were warned about the risks of the national care service. We are not talking about warnings from this side of the chamber; they came from charities and from Audit Scotland. Indeed, Craig Hoy went on to list a large number of warnings, which I do not have time to repeat.

My colleague Liz Smith reminded us of the numbers. The Scottish Government thinks that it will spend between £644 million and £1.26 billion, but Audit Scotland thinks that that is an underestimate. As we have been told, the Fraser of Allander Institute talked about groups that were trying to estimate the costs persistently having to question Government civil servants to get some clues as to the additional costs lying beyond the core costs.

In his opening remarks, the minister talked about having a clear bill. That is news to COSLA, which saw the bill only the day before it was published. He also spoke of transparency, but there is no transparency running through the rest of Government.

The minister went on to say that people were supportive. Why would they not be supportive of laudable aims? However, if he then goes on to say that the service will cost £1.3 billion to set up and that people will have no accountability—

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Will Dr Gulhane give way?

Sandesh Gulhane (Conservative, Glasgow)

No—the minister should listen to this. If he tells people that they will

have no accountability,

I believe that they will no longer support him—because the SNP fails to deliver.

Paul O’Kane reminded us about how John Swinney listened to stakeholders. Perhaps the minister should copy that and show some humility.

Alex Cole-Hamilton talked about how health and social care have deteriorated under the SNP’s watch. In contrast with Kevin Stewart, Mr Cole-Hamilton also pointed out that the bill’s financial memorandum contains no details.

Emma Harper does not seem to understand the difference between criticising the woefully inept SNP Government and talking about NHS and social care staff. Our heroic staff are burning out, yet despite the Scottish Government they are doing their best. Did she not hear Councillor Kelly at the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee say that staff are fearful about their jobs? The very staff she speaks about are terrified.

Carol Mochan talked about how the national care service would be a procurement service, which would not actually help the workers. She also reminded us that Unison said that the bill was not fit for purpose. That is a union that represents the workers that Emma Harper talked about but, like her Government colleagues, seemed to ignore.

Emma Roddick started by saying that she was confused, and she asked what people will say in 80 years’ time. What they will say is, “What a waste of money.” Moreover, if we are going to dig up

Hansard

records from 80 years ago, I will perhaps not tell her what her party wrote in a memo dated 15 August 1943. Perhaps I can get Ms Roddick to look that up for herself.

It is very important that Scottish ministers listen to what everyone has been saying. To quote Liz Smith, the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill is in deep trouble, and the minister knows it.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That concludes the debate.

Road Improvements

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-06520, in the name of Graham Simpson, on essential road improvements.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

We have been here before. Nearly a year ago we held an almost identical debate, calling on the Scottish Government to reaffirm its commitment to dualling the A9 and the A96, and to commit to upgrading other roads. We lost. The Scottish National Party amended our motion to take out any reference to particular roads.

Today, the SNP amendment mentions both roads, but nowhere in it is a commitment to fully dual them. Instead, we have the language of short-term fixes and a review. It looks very much as though those historic commitments lie in the gutter.

The SNP was once behind these projects. It committed to fully dualling the A9 between Perth and Inverness by 2025. Since that pledge was made 11 years ago, just over 12 miles have been completed—a little over a mile a year. At that rate, it will be 2086 by the time the other 70 miles are complete. I am afraid to say that none of us will be around to see it. Nicola Sturgeon can cancel the photo call—there will be no selfies on the A9 for her, and nor should there be, because there is a very sorry tale to tell.

Since our debate last year, a number of lives have been lost. So far this year, there have been 12 deaths on the A9 between Perth and Inverness—the highest number for 12 years, and all on single-carriageway sections. The latest incident—last month—saw 64-year-old George Norris killed when his Ford C-Max was in a collision with two other vehicles near Kingussie. Also in October, a man and a woman died when their car collided with a lorry near Birnam, south of Dunkeld. There were two fatal crashes on the A9 in September, one near Slochd and another near?Dunkeld, along with a fatality near Carrbridge on 30 September. That followed three members of one American family dying after a collision with a lorry on the A9 near Newtonmore on 10 August. Further, in July, 68-year-old David McPherson died in a crash at Slochd summit near Carrbridge, with his 65-year-old wife, Elza, and their two-year-old grandson dying in hospital a short time later.

Some 333 people have been killed on the A9 between Perth and Inverness since 1979. That is why we need desperately to fully dual that road. Accidents will continue to happen—there are different reasons for all accidents—but there will be far fewer of them. We can literally save lives by investing in these roads.

What about the A96? Thankfully, the death toll on the A96 this year has not been as bad as it has been on the A9. There was one fatality, though, in January, when 78-year-old John Channon of Dyce died following a crash near Auldearn.

The campaign to dual the A96 has been going on for 30 years. As far back as 1989,

The Press and Journal

was running a campaign called “end the carnage, spend the cash”. At that point, it was the UK Government that was responsible. It did not end the carnage and it did not spend the cash, and nothing has really changed since devolution.

In 2011, the SNP committed to completing the dualling of the road between Inverness and Aberdeen by 2030. Of course, that was before it did its deal with the Greens, which put a halt to things while we wait for a “transparent, evidence-based review” of the environmental impacts of the project. Last year, Transport Scotland was claiming that the study would be completed by the end of this year, and the minister’s amendment today makes the same claim.

I can only hope that Transport Scotland has not been listening too much to the words of Green MSP Maggie Chapman, who predicted last year that the review would find that it

“isn’t viable to dual the whole way”.

The problem that we have here is that the SNP has been ensnared by the Greens. It is almost as though Jenny Gilruth has to ask permission from Maggie Chapman to do anything. We can imagine the conversation: “Please, Maggie, can I dual the roads?”; “No, minister—don’t you remember? It’s not viable.” We really are in a bad place if we are to base our roads improvement programme on the views of Maggie Chapman.

Of course, investing in those roads is not just about road safety. Making transport easier boosts the local and—because of the roads’ strategic importance—national economy. Members would not expect the anti-growth Greens to understand that, but I would have thought that wiser heads in the SNP might do so.

It would be remiss of me not to mention other roads in Scotland that are in dire need of improvement, such as the A75 and A77. Between 2018 and last year, on those two roads, there were nine fatal accidents—a shocking toll of death. Today, I met members of the A77 action group—

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

Will the member take an intervention?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Mr Simpson is bringing his remarks to a close.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I am happy to take the intervention.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You will have to conclude your speech within your allotted seven minutes.