Seòmar agus comataidhean

—which is costing us huge amounts of money. We need to do more on workforce planning to ensure that we do not exacerbate an already—

Yes, absolutely. If we have learned nothing else through the whole process, we know that we need to centre the voice of lived experience. If it is possible to get someone with lived experience as the chair of the expert panel, it is essential that we do so and that they are supported to ensure that they can be in the role for a long time.

For that reason, I do not agree with Sandesh Gulhane that the money has been completely wasted. He conveniently forgot to mention the massive impact that years of Tory austerity, Brexit and the Tories’ disastrous fiscal policies have had on public services up and down the country.

I welcome the measures that the cabinet secretary outlined for the hospital at home and rapid access for frailty systems and for ensuring that people can see a GP more easily. We see many measures that will make staff’s lives, or jobs easier as well—I am demonstrating the pitfalls of writing notes and scribbling things down as I go.

The roll-out of a health service app is long overdue. Many of the digital advancements that we have spoken about could revolutionise how the public interact with the NHS and how care can be delivered. Although many of the things that the First Minister announced yesterday are welcome, we need fundamental reform across the NHS to improve care and the experience of staff, which is hugely important.

Karen Adam mentioned library closures in her constituency. My Green colleague Mark Ruskell has been working with local people on a campaign on library closures in Perth and Kinross. Karen Adam is entirely correct that libraries are not just about books and that, although literacy is hugely important, their wider social and health benefits for communities, including, in my region, baby and toddler groups, knitting groups and anti-loneliness initiatives, are hugely important. I encourage others to speak in the members’ business debate on libraries next week. However, the issue highlights the fragility of services and the urgent need for real conversation about how we make those services sustainable for the long term. Although I do not have any library closures in my region, sport and community venues are being impacted. Some will be transferred to local groups, and, although we should empower communities wherever we can, in some places we are passing on to local groups the burden of a backlog in building maintenance.

Sue Webber mentioned potholes, which are a serious issue. The way that council roads departments are funded is pretty wild, in my opinion. They have to keep back some funding in case of a poor winter, but, if the winter is mild and that funding is not all used, we see a load of potholes getting fixed at this time of year—before the end of the financial year. Climate change and the quality of the surfacing that we are using are major issues; multiyear funding for local authorities would absolutely help with some of the issues. That was a very random piece of knowledge about road surfaces, I note.

Not to allow the Lib Dems alone to have their way on their budget wins, I want to cover the Green impact on this year’s budget. We have secured the roll-out of free school meals for up to an additional 15,000 pupils. Across the chamber, we all know and agree that children cannot learn properly when they are hungry. That roll-out of free school meals is an important step towards the Scottish Greens’ goal of universal free school meals. We have also secured a year-long regional trial for bus fares to be capped at £2, because we know that the cost of public transport is too high. That builds on our work in previous budgets to give everyone under the age of 22 free bus travel.

As the climate is being put higher and higher up the agenda by many, we have worked to deliver record funding for major restoration and our environment. Those green projects are creating well-paid jobs in communities across the country, but in rural areas in particular. We have increased tax on the purchase of second or holiday homes; we are moving forward with proposals for a cruise ship levy, the consultation on which will be launched in February; and progress is on-going to give councils more direct power through our consultation on devolving parking fines to local authorities.

Well-funded public services are the bedrock of our society, as Stuart McMillan said. Our amendment also mentions the Government’s trial of the four-day working week that was piloted by South of Scotland Enterprise and which demonstrated promising outcomes in terms of productivity, employee wellbeing and job satisfaction. We reiterate our calls to the Government to build on that trial, to support a better work-life balance and to position Scotland as a leader in progressive and innovative workforce policies.

I still believe that the biggest challenges that we face in public services are sustainability, demand and the looming issue of national insurance contributions. We need a change there, and I hope that some Labour colleagues recognise the issues and will make representations to their colleagues at Westminster.

We recognise the importance of the public service reform programme in driving future financial sustainability. Transforming how our services are designed and delivered is key to ensuring that they remain effective, efficient and responsive to the needs of Scotland’s people, with the capacity to react and flex to any challenges that may arise.

This has been a lively and diverse debate. I will start by reflecting on a few of the contributions to it.

Kevin Stewart is absolutely correct that we have spent far too much money on tackling crisis in social care. We must ensure that social care reform continues and that, despite what has happened with the national care service, it is not simply put in the “too hard to do” category. I also agree that we must ensure that the lived experience testimony and the work in that regard are not lost, so I was grateful to the Minister for Social Care, Mental Wellbeing and Sport for outlining how some of that will be retained.

I welcome the commitment to investing in our public services, particularly in my portfolio of health and social care. Far from being a burden on the economy, growth in public spending as a proportion of the economy has had a persistent positive link with gross domestic product for more than a century. The mechanisms that link public spending and economic growth include investment in and maintenance of infrastructure, supporting an educated and healthy workforce and redistributing income. There can be no sustainable economic growth without prioritising and properly resourcing our public services. That is why the increased investment across public services is very welcome.

However, the investment must be strategically deployed to address key challenges, including workforce capacity, service accessibility and a focus on preventative care. I recognise that there are pressures, but striking a balance between those financial constraints and the consequences of reducing spending on critical services remains an immense challenge. Scotland’s public finances face significant pressure, which must be met with bold action to ensure the sustainability and long-term stability of our public services. I would also like to point to the role that the Scottish Greens have played in securing progressive income tax reforms in past budgets, ensuring that lower earners in Scotland pay less tax than those elsewhere in the UK. That progressive approach underscores our commitment to fairness and equity in public finance and a commitment to bring about transformative change.

I agree with one of Michael Marra’s points. I do not do that particularly often, but he is correct that reform in the NHS urgently needs to be worked on. If I have time, I will come back to that.

Many members have referred to the UK Government’s decision to increase employer national insurance contributions. The impact of that move cannot be overstated, especially in Scotland, where public services depend on the hard work of more than 600,000 people, who make up 22 per cent of our total workforce; that is higher than the UK average of 17 per cent. The UK Government’s increase in employer national insurance contributions poses a very serious threat to third sector organisations, care providers and charities across Scotland, many of which are already grappling with surging demand and escalating costs as well as declining funding and declining certainty in that funding. There are several estimates that the increases will cost Scottish third sector organisations an additional £75 million in 2025-26. Hospices, homeless shelters and care providers could be hit the hardest.

Several charities have highlighted and described the devastating impact that additional cost will have. The Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland has pointed out that 62 per cent of its members anticipate needing to cut services, with 58 per cent expecting to reduce staff. It has reiterated the calls to exempt third sector organisations from the national insurance contributions increase, and it has pointed out that several providers have noted that such relief could be game changing.

Hospices have also opposed the increase, and a joint letter from 14 Scottish hospices warned the Chancellor of the Exchequer that rising costs could force them to turn people away from their essential services. It is the same story for social care providers. The increase is projected to cost organisations such as Turning Point Scotland £1.1 million annually, pushing them further into deficit. Nearly 48 per cent of care providers that were surveyed reported that service closures are a real possibility without additional support.

I was grateful to attend the Scottish Care care home conference, along with Brian Whittle, Jackie Baillie and the cabinet secretary, where we heard about the impact on individual care homes. Some said that the additional cost of the national insurance contributions could be £300,000 per care home and some expressed doubt about whether they could weather the additional cost for more than a year.

What happens if we lose some care homes should be a real concern to us all. The impact that that could have on our local authorities and the individuals who support the care homes is staggering, and we need a resolution to that. That is without even talking about the impact on GPs, councils’ arm’s-length organisations and commissioned services within local authorities. The Labour Government’s decision to prioritise a national insurance contribution increase over other tax reform exacerbates those issues. Aligning UK income tax rates with Scotland’s progressive system could raise an additional £11 billion.

It is important to recognise the scale of the challenges that we face and to double down on efforts to safeguard Scotland’s health and social care systems, and public services more generally, for generations to come. The investments that we welcome today are a step in the right direction, but they must be met with concrete action. We need sustained, focused funding that prioritises prevention, supports overstretched services and ensures equitable access to care. That means shifting from a system that reacts to crises to one that proactively supports good health and wellbeing. I echo the cabinet secretary’s calls on the UK Government to do its part by fully refunding the additional costs of employer national insurance contributions for the public sector. That is about protecting vital third sector organisations, sustaining our hospices and ensuring the resilience of the entire health and care system.

I sincerely wish that the chancellor would show more willingness to listen to the concerns of third sector organisations in the same way that she seems to have listened to and acknowledged the demands of the non-dom community recently. At the same time, I reiterate my call on the Scottish Government to tackle the harms that we see across public services and to ensure that health and social care services are properly funded, that we have the plans to tackle the on-going issues that we are seeing and that we have Scottish public services that generations to come can be proud of.

I move amendment S6M-16237.4, to leave out from “notes the importance” to “sustainability” and insert:

“further calls on the UK Government to fully fund the increase in employer national insurance contributions in commissioned services and arm’s-length external organisations; notes the importance of the public service reform programme to drive future financial sustainability; further notes the success of the four-day week pilot trialled by South of Scotland Enterprise, and calls on the Scottish Government to expand the four-day working week within the public sector workforce”.

I hope that the announcement by the Government will allow us to make small but positive changes to social care, even if we know that much more needs to be done. The minister rightly highlighted how traumatic it can be for people to repeat their stories. Will she outline how the work of lived experience groups will be retained, how it will contribute to the on-going reform of social care and whether the right to information and advocacy that was originally contained in part 1 of the bill will be put elsewhere?

This is the first module of 10 that will complete over the next few years. The inquiry is essential and it cannot be rushed, but the recommendations should be worked on at pace. I am grateful to the Deputy First Minister for setting out how that is being done at the moment. However, pandemics do not wait for us to complete work, learn lessons and then implement them before they happen. How confident is the Deputy First Minister that, if we were to have another pandemic in the short term, we would be ready, without the full learning from the inquiry?

In the past few weeks, winter pressures have meant that we have heard several warnings from health boards not to come to A and E departments unless it is an emergency. For many people, the alternative minor injuries unit is not as close as their local A and E department. That includes my constituents in Falkirk, for whom the nearest minor injuries unit is in Stirling. For some people, going to that unit means their passing two hospitals, including an A and E department. For many people, that is just not an option. Has the cabinet secretary assessed what benefit there might be in opening a minor injuries unit in Falkirk to help to relieve pressure, especially during the winter months?

A key part of the Martins review was an examination of the value of instant messaging apps to ministers in emergency situations and to draw on best practice in other countries across the world. In its response to the review, how has the Scottish Government considered its preparedness for communicating during future emergencies?

I do not know what hope the debate will have given to anyone who is concerned about their care or that of a loved one. They will have watched MSPs shouting at one other and talking about parliamentary process rather than the vision that we should have for social care reform and, crucially, what we are going to do individually. I am committed to ensuring that we see reform and that there is equality across local authorities in what people are entitled to.

No one can argue that money is not hugely important but, as I stated at stage 1 of the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill, we do not need money to change the culture. The culture is a huge part of the issues that we have. We should have made an awful lot more progress on a great many things long before now. Jackie Baillie noted where we could amend other legislation to give effect to those things that the Parliament agrees on. The time that it could take to do that is one of my big concerns, especially as the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee is hugely busy and has a massive legislative load. I appreciate that the bill has been paused, but I still believe that substantial amendment and passing the aspects of the bill that we agree on would be the most expedient way to make changes. A great many stakeholders and individuals have put in time and effort on some of the provisions in the bill, and I remain hugely concerned about how demoralising it must be for those who have given their views in the process and how badly social care reform could be set back if we do not do something quickly and give those people hope.

The cabinet secretary mentioned disabled people’s organisations. I had the pleasure of speaking to some of them after our party conference and they were rightly angry that the bill is being used as a political football. They told me that although, for us, it is a legislation-making process, for them, it is their lives. It was hugely emotional, and I am very grateful to them for sharing their experiences, which have certainly stayed with me.

Alex Cole-Hamilton mentioned the workforce. As I reflected on early in my time in the Parliament, that is one of my biggest drivers because of my experience as an unpaid carer for my grandpa. Social care staff are hugely skilled and they deserve recognition and pay for what they do. We should have collective bargaining, as Paul Sweeney mentioned, as well as maternity pay, sick pay and clear career progression and training opportunities. I hope that the minister or the cabinet secretary—whoever will be closing in this debate—will be able to point to any progress that is being made in that area.

I know the negotiating effort that that took, but there are other things that we should be exploring, such as ethical commissioning. That would allow us to put in some of the provisions so that organisations do not take advantage of their staff or have profit leak from the system. We need to ensure that there is fair funding for all in the social care sector.

This week, many colleagues will have had emails about hospice funding. Many third sector providers are concerned about how their care homes are going to continue to operate. We also need to acknowledge the issues that the national insurance changes have caused for the sector. I know that Jackie Baillie heard about that at the conference that we both spoke at.

I am privileged to be the convener of the cross-party group on carers. I will be looking to amend some of the provisions that relate to unpaid carers in order to strengthen the access to carer support plans, and many other things.

I am aware that I am running out of time, Deputy Presiding Officer. There are many other issues that we need to solve, and I do not think that we have gotten anywhere close to them in the debate.

The recommendations of the Feeley review remain relevant. Today, indeed, they are more relevant than ever. It is vital that those recommendations are implemented to the greatest extent possible.