Official Report 442KB pdf
14:03
Deaths of Babies (Co-sleeping)
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to recent findings by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service that 29 babies have died as a result of co-sleeping in Scotland in the past two years. (S6T-02970)
The loss of a baby is a tragic and traumatic event that has a profound impact and is something that no family should have to endure. I extend my condolences to every family who has experienced the loss of a baby or child.
Although sudden unexpected deaths in infancy are invariably complex and there could be many reasons for those deaths, any death is one too many. I am clear that families must be provided with up-to-date evidence-based information to enable them to make informed choices when taking care of their sleeping baby. In June 2023 and again in September 2024, we refreshed our safer sleep for babies resources to ensure that families have the most up-to-date information possible. I urge all parents with babies and small children to follow that guidance.
Recommended guidance is that the safest place for a baby to sleep is in their own separate cot. However, it is important that women are supported to make informed decisions about co-sleeping, particularly in the early stages of a newborn’s life, when parents and carers may be tired and lack sleep and rest. Does the Government believe that current advice and support are sufficiently publicised in a way that is helping women to make informed choices about that?
Carol Mochan is right to point out the advice that is available. As a result of the correspondence that I have had with Ruth Charteris, I have asked my officials to write to all health boards to ensure that they point out that those resources are available to healthcare workers who are supporting families of newborn babies.
I thank the minister for that helpful answer. I understand that advice and guidance are regularly updated. Does the Scottish Government know of any further research that is being carried out on co-sleeping? How can we ensure that Scotland stays up to date with the latest research and guidance?
As I indicated, I have received correspondence from Ruth Charteris. Her letter specifically highlighted the importance of having a compassionate and caring conversation around co-sleeping.
The Scottish Government bases its advice on evidence. We have worked with the leading baby loss charity, the Lullaby Trust, which has shown that 90 per cent of parents bed share with their baby at some point. Therefore, it is important that we ensure that the guidance is kept up to date and is as supportive as it can be for families.
Scottish Fire and Rescue Service (Budget)
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reported comments by the Fire Brigades Union that years of real-terms budget reductions have left the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service “creaking”, and that proposed workforce reductions would increase the risk to community safety, particularly following the recent fire in Glasgow. (S6T-02973)
I echo the First Minister’s recognition of the service’s response to the Union corner fire. We recognise the vital role that the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service plays in keeping our community safe, and we remain committed to sustaining that capability.
The 2026-27 budget provides an additional £23.8 million to the SFRS, taking our total funding of it to £436 million, which demonstrates our continued support for the SFRS so that it can deliver the high-standard services that are required to keep Scotland safe.
We are aware of the concerns that the Fire Brigades Union has raised about long-term pressures that the service is facing, and our focus has always been on community safety and protecting front-line services. The SFRS’s evidence-based service delivery review will align resources to modern risks and demands, ensuring that resources are directed where they are needed, and we will continue to discuss its further funding requirements.
The devastating fire on Union Street in Glasgow once again demonstrated the extraordinary professionalism and bravery of Scotland’s firefighters. However, we have heard deeply concerning warnings from the FBU that years of real-term budget cuts have left the fire service “creaking”. There have been 1,250 firefighter posts cut since the creation of the national fire service. Ten high-lift appliances have been cut. The service has an ageing fleet, with only one new fire engine coming into service in the past two years. Fire stations have closed, 18 stations are without running water, and the list goes on.
It is noticeable that the fire service review has been kicked into the long grass until after the May elections. Given all those cuts, how can the public have confidence that community safety will not be compromised?
It is right that the service review is about the SFRS identifying the optimal service to keep communities across Scotland safe in the future by addressing changes in risk. The emergencies that the SFRS responds to have changed significantly over the years; for example, dwelling fires have reduced by more than 20 per cent since 2013. Statistics also show a 33 per cent reduction in non-fatal fire casualties between 2009-10 and 2023-24 and a 32 per cent reduction in fatal fire casualties over the same period. The SFRS chief officer would not make any changes to operations that would put the public at an unacceptable level of risk.
I note the minister’s response, but it will be of little reassurance to firefighters on the ground who are being asked to do more with less. Firefighters have been clear that there are fewer firefighters, fewer appliances and longer response times, and none of those things logically results in safer communities. In response to an article that the minister wrote in her local press, the FBU said:
“The Minister’s call for improved fire safety at a time when she is overseeing a service being systematically stripped of jobs and fire fighting capacity shows she is in complete denial about what is going on in the service she is responsible for.”
Is the minister in complete denial about the effects of her Scottish National Party Government’s cuts to the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service?
Absolutely not. I highlight to the member that the reduction in firefighter numbers since 2013 is not because of cuts. Forming a single national service allowed the SFRS to protect front-line services while reducing duplication. We will continue to work with the SFRS to assess the impact of possible pressures on the budget for 2026-27 to ensure that service levels are maintained.
The centralisation of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service was not just about reducing duplication; it was about much more than that. In 2023, 166 firefighters were cut from the service and there was a temporary withdrawal of 10 fire appliances. It was not simply about duplication.
Last week, Colin Brown of the FBU wrote to the First Minister and said:
“It is impossible to accept the argument that fewer firefighters, fewer stations, fewer pumping appliances … and longer response times will somehow make communities safer.”
The Criminal Justice Committee has heard not just from the union but from SFRS management that they are concerned about the budget’s impact. Is it right for the board to make a decision in June, when the new Parliament will only just have been elected? I think that that will result in the burying of bad news. Surely the minister shares my concerns about the issue. Is it not time to shift that decision, at least until the Parliament settles in and we can have a proper look at the impact of the budget on the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service?
As I said to the other member, the chief officer has said that the service will not make any changes to operations that put the public at any unacceptable level of risk. With the service delivery review, it is right that the SFRS takes its time to go through the more than 3,000 responses and to make decisions. The SFRS is the expert in the area, and we should allow it to take the decisions on how the service should best be configured.
Across Scotland, people will share the FBU’s concern for the service, given the fire in Glasgow. They will have noted the skilled and dedicated work of the firefighters who attended that awful scene. We must have a well-resourced fire service that can respond to ever-changing urban and rural environments. However, there is uncertainty about the future of many fire stations, including the one at Balmossie, in my region. Workers and communities have waited too long to hear what will happen to their local station and staff. When will that uncertainty end? When will firefighters and the communities that they work to keep safe know what their future will be in terms of firefighting safety?
We do not have a definite date for the service delivery review but, as I said to Pauline McNeill, the SFRS is taking its time to go through the consultation responses. It is not a short-term plan; it will be implemented over the next five years.
What analysis has been conducted of the potential change in response times for the north-east of the city of Edinburgh should the proposed closure of Marionville fire station proceed?
That is an operational decision, and the analysis will come from the Scottish Fire and Rescue through its service delivery review. The SFRS continues to respond to every emergency incident with the appropriate level of resources. That was evident at the fire in Glasgow just a few weeks ago, at which there were more than 250 firefighters.
Home Care Services
To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to protect people receiving and awaiting social care packages, in light of recent reports that industry leaders are warning that home care services are heading towards a “catastrophic breakdown”. (S6T-02979)
We are working to improve outcomes for people who need or receive social care. No one in Scotland should have to wait for crucial care and support. It is the responsibility of local authorities, national health service boards and integrated health and social care partnerships to have in place clear arrangements for the delivery, commissioning, management and monitoring of social care.
The current social care support system is under pressure as a result of Brexit, increased demand, restrictive United Kingdom Government migration policies, the increase in employer national insurance contributions and the cost of living. It needs to work better for everyone in Scotland, and we will continue to work with partners and people with lived experience to ensure that that happens.
For the five years of this parliamentary session, we have known about the challenges that the minister has just rehearsed, and all the while that crisis in social care has fed through to a crisis in our NHS. It is no wonder that the report that was submitted to ministers by Lynn Laughland, who is the chair of HRM Homecare Services Ltd, revealed that 40,000 weekly hours of care were being missed or not met. That led her to say:
“These are not administrative backlogs. They are the measurable consequences of a system operating beyond sustainable capacity.”
The sector has been on its knees for the better part of this parliamentary session, and this Government has been found wanting. In the dying days of this parliamentary session, what will the minister’s Government do to help social care in this country?
I recognise the constructive engagement of Ms Laughland. With regard to what has been achieved in this Parliament, one key point that I will highlight is the increase in resource. This Government committed to an increase in social care resource of 25 per cent. That commitment not only has been met ahead of the end of the parliamentary session but has been exceeded by approximately £500 million. That has happened at a time when we have had unparalleled pressure generated by the cost of living crisis. We all remember that we have had to contend with eye-watering inflation rates, which have impacted every individual, household and business, including those who operate in social care, and every facet of the public sector.
With regard to the specific measures that have been taken at the end of this parliamentary session, I draw members’ attention to my announcement last week, which set out that the Government is committed to introducing sectoral bargaining for the financial year 2027-28. That, in and of itself, represents a significant step forward in improving terms, conditions, pay and overall resource in social care.
The current rates of social care pay are “woefully inadequate”. Those are not my words but those of Donald Macaskill, who is the chief executive of Scottish Care. Let me quantify for members what that means. As a result of those 40,000 hours of unmet need in our communities, 2,000 Scots remain in hospital every night—they are well enough to go home but too frail to do so without a care package. That costs the NHS £1.3 million a day, whereas it would cost a quarter of that to sustain them in their own homes with a care package. All of that causes an interruption in flow, which causes operations to be cancelled and ambulances to be stacked outside accident and emergency units.
When will the Government finally recognise the words of Donald Macaskill, who says:
“I am still frustrated the Scottish Government doesn’t take social care seriously”?
I put on record my sincere gratitude to Donald Macaskill and his team at Scottish Care for their continued engagement and valued insights. It has been a pleasure to engage with them regularly throughout my tenure as minister.
To respond on the issue of pay, that is why I made the point about sectoral bargaining, which is absolutely crucial. As Alex Cole-Hamilton will appreciate, there is differentiation in pay across social care depending on whether one is employed under agenda for change, the Scottish joint council for local government employees or the independent sector. That is exactly why sectoral bargaining has been brought forward after much careful work and deliberation with providers, Scottish Care, the Coalition of Care and Support Providers in Scotland, trade union colleagues and local government.
We have delivered the real living wage, which is £12.60 this year, for those who are involved in directly commissioned services in adult social care. In April, the wage will go up to £13.45. That represents significant investment, but we have an opportunity to build on that in the next parliamentary session through sectoral bargaining.
Some 1,036 Glaswegians are currently on a waiting list for social care assessment by the city council, which is the highest total in just under two years. While waiting list numbers are increasing, the sector is now facing a crisis and social care providers have been told to deliver a pay increase but without the extra funding to meet it. Lynn Laughland, the chief executive of HRM Homecare Services, said:
“Care providers are having to hand back work because they can’t afford to run their services.”
That is surely not acceptable. Will the minister accept that that is a direct result of the Scottish Government’s decision, and will the Government aim to bridge the financial shortfall before we end up in a self-defeating situation whereby social care providers reduce staff levels and cut capacity?
I draw the member’s attention to the additional resource that was agreed through the budget process in the Parliament, although I recognise that social care providers are under significant pressure. We know that that is a consequence of the UK Labour Government’s decision to increase employer national insurance contributions. It is estimated that that is costing the social care sector in Scotland around £84 million this year.
A range of factors are impacting on the delivery of social care, and resourcing is a key component of that. That is why there has been a significant uplift in investment in social care over this parliamentary session, and it is why we have committed to sectoral bargaining, ensuring that the terms, conditions and remuneration for social care workers can be enhanced and improved going forward.
That concludes topical questions.
Air ais
Time for ReflectionAir adhart
Climate Change Plan