Seòmar agus comataidhean

Fiona Collie mentioned carers a number of times, and they are an important part of the discussion. We know that unpaid carers provide the bulk of our social care. There is a thought that some carers are unaware of exactly what their rights are, or of what is in place to support them. Will the witnesses, particularly Fiona Collie, share some of their thoughts on that with us? What are the key things that we should be thinking about in relation to providing a new strategy for supporting carers to ensure that they get what they are entitled to?

The Labour Party has costed that out and we have had that discussion. It is about choices. If the SNP Government had the political will, it would do it—[Interruption.]

The budget is lacking in ambition and it is full of the usual unnecessary compromises that leave people wondering why public funds are not being utilised effectively to help us to recover from the pandemic and tackle the looming cost of living crisis. It will simply not help individuals enough. It has little to offer our hard-working NHS and social care workforce and, on top of that, councils are being left to suffer once again as the Government passes difficult decisions down the line and forces local authorities to take on yet another round of real-terms cuts.

COSLA suggests that the real-terms core funding cuts amount to £371 million of lost funds. That is a story that my council colleagues have been forced to hear year after year. I will be interested to speak to the councillors on the ground, from all parties, about the announcements that are made and the way in which the budget process is conducted. However, we know that the local government funding position means that many of the targets and priorities around care, exercise and social isolation that the Government brings to the chamber and covers in various reports week after week will never get off the starting block in local communities.

Local authorities simply do not have the capacity to meet their populations’ needs, and they cannot commit to funding beyond very basic provision. They cannot commit to funding additional care, exercise and green-space areas, housing improvements, roads or bin collections, because they cannot afford to do that. I hear from council colleagues and residents all the time about the lack of local services but, yet again, the Government simply does not listen. It finds it convenient to blame councils, claiming that they have the choice to prioritise what they deem suitable and that they can raise their own revenue in some cases. In reality, the decisions that are made here in the chamber will be fatal for large chunks of locally run services.

In April, many people will see their energy costs rise by as much as 50 per cent. Even for relatively comfortable families, that is a serious load to bear, but for those who are already living from month to month, it is potentially life destroying. I understand that the £290 million that was announced by the chancellor will go towards that, which is welcome and the correct thing to do. However, the £290 million should not lead to a squeeze on other expenditure in Scotland’s budget and it should not be assumed that that is even close to enough for those families. I join my colleagues in calling for an additional £400 payment to be given to those families who will be hit the hardest by the crisis.

The ballooning energy costs, which have been caused by poor energy infrastructure planning, Governments putting profit before people and greedy oil and gas companies that clearly have done everything in their power to lobby those at the top against Labour’s windfall tax on their profits, will disproportionately impact the most vulnerable. Most people around the country believe that such profitable and gigantic companies should be made to pay more towards the countries that they benefit from. A windfall tax is justified and the right action to take. I am glad that the First Minister appears to have now backed something similar to the windfall tax—although, as is often the case, it has not been made clear exactly what she is backing—but it would also be helpful if she could make her MPs do the same and walk into the lobbies to support people over profit.

The budget is simply not enough even to meet the Government’s child poverty targets and to fund our councils—I do not need to reiterate the very cogent points made by my colleagues about education, health and social care.

I come back to a point that I raised earlier about our undervalued social care staff, who are a severely low-paid workforce. At the very least, the Scottish Government should commit to a £15 minimum wage for social care staff, who have worked especially hard during the pandemic and have not been valued by the Scottish Government. Scottish Labour has costed an immediate pay increase to £12 an hour, rising to £15 an hour.

Where is the ambitious funding to help our NHS recover and prevent so many staff leaving? We know that a recent report indicated that six in 10 nursing professionals are thinking of leaving the NHS at a time when we can ill afford to lose them. Urgent action is needed from the Government to value NHS staff and to maintain staff numbers.

Without a commitment to funding our councils, paying our social care staff properly and giving our NHS the resource that it needs and deserves, it is impossible for anyone who is committed to helping Scotland to recover from the pandemic to back the budget. This budget represents a Government bereft of ideas and lacking a desire to support those most in need. It simply is just not enough.

I was hoping for an intervention from Mr Gibson. I hope that he will join us in Glasgow or Edinburgh on Saturday to campaign and fight to stop the cost of living crisis.

In closing the debate for Scottish Labour, and in expressing our support for the principles and intentions of the bill, I encourage Parliament to support Scottish Labour’s reasoned amendment, which Jackie Baillie set out and put correctly in the context of the cost of living crisis. I also note the mathematics that went on in the chamber while we did that. I thank Mr Mason for that, and I thank the Greens for clarifying that they will support that reasoned amendment.

As we have all said, the Covid-19 pandemic has had implications that we could never have imagined 22 months ago, when the initial restrictions were introduced. As a result, it requires an unprecedented response, which must be targeted at those who have been hardest hit and those who are most vulnerable, as we continue to move forward from the pandemic. Everybody has recognised that point.

We know how important self-isolation has been during the pandemic. It has served to stop the spread of the virus and to protect the most vulnerable, and, ultimately, it has saved many lives. However, we also know that there are significant downsides from a health perspective, such as the impact that isolation can have on an individual’s mental health, and from an economic viewpoint for the thousands of Scots for whom working from home is simply not an option. The loss of income that comes with self-isolation can be, and has been, devastating for many individuals and their families.

In cases where isolation has been as long as 10 days, for some, that has represented 10 days without pay, followed by real worry and concern about whether they will be able to put food on the table and serious difficulty in paying bills. Those worries have only increased amidst the cost of living crisis.

The pandemic has had impacts that go far beyond public health: it has impacted people’s lives, it has left them out of pocket and it has brought further uncertainty to those who were already struggling to get by. As we have all spoken about in the chamber, the self-isolation compensation payment is absolutely required to assist those individuals. It has been valuable to hear everyone come together on that point.

Indeed, if the Parliament backs Scottish Labour’s amendment, we can not only agree to the bill but make a commitment to delivering a payment that matches the national living wage for those who have lost income due to self-isolation. That will reduce the likelihood of that compensation payment still equating to a loss for those individuals. That is an important point.

However, as was mentioned by my colleague Jackie Baillie and others during the stage 1 debate and again at other stages, it is crucial that those payments are made in a timely fashion and that they get to people’s pockets straight away. It is welcome that the Scottish Government is supporting the extension of provision for Covid-19 self-isolation, as we know only too well the crippling financial impact that not doing so would have on our health boards, which are already under significant pressure due to the demands that have been placed on them by the pandemic.

While our thanks go to all those who are helping with the processing of payments, in many cases, people cannot wait lengthy periods of time to receive them. As has been mentioned, the experience has been mixed. We heard from Paul O’Kane that some local authorities seem to have done better than others in processing the payments. It is important that we get those payments to people as timeously as we can.

That brings me to another concern that was raised at stage 1 regarding public awareness of the compensation fund and its uptake among low-income families and other population groups.

It is important that we get that information out to people—I acknowledge that the Deputy First Minister referred to that point. He also said that significant uptake has continued and that the Government will continue to push the message and ensure that it gets the promotional material out there. We must use targeted social media messaging and other methods to do that. Only by doing so will we make the choice to self-isolate more comfortable for those who might have feared previously that self-isolating would lead to significant financial difficulty.

I reiterate my party’s support for the bill, and I encourage members to vote in favour of the reasoned amendment in the name of Jackie Baillie, which will ensure that the payment does not fall short for individuals, and that, importantly, it meets the national living wage.

It is right that we introduce this separate legislation to help the most impacted during the most unpredictable of times. People should not be punished for following the rules and keeping themselves and others safe.

We will continue to hold the Scottish Government to account in its delivery of the legislation and ensure that it supports those who have suffered financially due to self-isolation, that it increases uptake and that it offers support to those who are processing payments.

I thank all members who have spoken in the debate. I hope that we will pass the bill.

It is very welcome that both the minister and the cabinet secretary have indicated that, in what is a crisis, we should be dealing with things that we can deal with now.

I am interested to know their opinion on the low-income winter heating assistance scheme, which is out for consultation, although it is not pencilled in to start until next winter. Do they agree with me that that is far too late? I would be interested to know about the discussions on that. To what extent are we taking into account the views of the energy suppliers over those of the people who actually need the assistance—and who need it now, as I think we are all agreed?

Despite the pain and suffering that we know has been felt by many who have had surgical transvaginal mesh implants, on 25 January, the Scottish Government signed a deal with mesh providers to provide more mesh surgery for the next 24 months, at a cost of £3.5 million. Given that we know the extent of post-operative problems with mesh, is the First Minister aware of whether any alternatives, such as natural tissue repair, are offered? Given the experiences of mesh campaigners, will she commit to an independent review of all mesh use in Scotland, so that we can better understand the scale of what seems to be an increasing problem?

I thank Ariane Burgess for bringing the debate to the chamber.

Across the UK, we are deeply fortunate to live on a spectacular and unique island furnished with an incredible coastline that, for centuries, has provided us with food, employment and leisure. The environmental wealth that is present across Scotland’s coast is abundant and, without it, our entire culture would be altogether different. I am immensely thankful for that and, from speaking to my constituents, I know that it is perhaps the thing that they love most about the South Scotland region.

However, in order to maintain that environmental wealth, we have to begin to see the coast as a delicate ecosystem with varied needs and challenges, from erosion to the loss of seagrass. We need a thriving coastline to preserve not just the local environment, but the environment of our whole country. That is a weighty responsibility, and I am sure that all of us in the chamber take it very seriously.

Whether it is the work that is mentioned in the motion or the efforts to reintroduce oysters to the Firth of Clyde in my region, every step requires diligent planning and the encouraging of new generations to understand that the coast is a natural resource that we must protect. Part of doing that requires making our coastal communities economically prosperous. That will serve as a strong foundation from which further environmental work can be done. The decline in fishing in so many of Scotland’s coastal communities has broken our economic link with the shore and, with that, poverty has followed.

South Scotland is home to some of our country’s most beautiful and vibrant coastal communities—communities that for many decades were holiday resorts and getaways for families from across Scotland. The way that people travel and take holidays might have changed over time, but for many of those brilliant towns and villages, income from tourism is vital to their continued prosperity. That tourism must be encouraged and incentivised in a sustainable way, and I hope that one of the few advantages of Covid has been that the public has been shown just how wonderful a time they can have at home, on the cliffs and beaches of my region and many others across Scotland.

With that tourism, however, comes increased pollution and, in particular, littering. The South Ayrshire clean-up campaign picked up one million pieces of litter last year alone, with a great deal of it being found in coastal towns, including Ayr, Prestwick and Troon. Much of that litter ends up on beaches and, inevitably, in the sea, where it continues the cycle and is often deposited elsewhere. That is on top of the sewage that is pumped into the sea, creating further ecological problems for wildlife that is often already struggling. Birds and marine life in particular are adversely affected by such build-up and, over time, it leads to loss of habitat, food sources and, inevitably, life.

As Ariane Burgess’s motion details, a key facet of solving the problem is to provide volunteers and organisations with the means to set up community-led nature restoration projects that are both economically viable and environmentally sustainable. Only when that happens will we be able to much more directly tackle pollution and environmental decline. That cannot be entirely top-down, but the private companies that create so much pollution must be held financially responsible. Without that financial support, it is left to well-meaning groups that are reliant on very limited fundraising and the good will of volunteers. The Government and big business must do more.

Our coastline is one of Scotland’s greatest natural assets. It is home to all manner of flora and fauna, and for many people it is also the place that they are from and where they have raised their families. During this parliamentary session, I would like to see a much greater emphasis placed on the key role that such areas play in our nation and, as such, I reiterate my gratitude to Ariane Burgess for bringing this important debate to the chamber.

I am quite new to the subject matter and I want to put on record that I am interested in the way the matter has progressed. Similar to other members, I have been involved in the mesh debate with women in relation to transvaginal mesh. It is important that we use the evidence that we have from other areas.

I support the overall sentiment of the petition: it is a perfectly reasonable request that a review is held and that guidelines around the surgical use of mesh are established. The petitioners have brought evidence to the minister and the committee has gone over other evidence. It is incumbent on us to ensure that reasonable requests are respected; it seems reasonable for the Citizens Participation and Public Petitions Committee to take action and at least further scrutinise what can be done to support the petition.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak today. I hope to keep an eye on what is happening around mesh for those people.

Some councils, including the Scottish National Party-led Glasgow City Council, have stated that it will cost billions of pounds to bring housing in line with expectations. It appears that the Scottish Government wants councils to get the private sector to help foot the bill, but in smaller and more rural council areas, where massive industry and service sectors are less prevalent, how is that possible?

In South Ayrshire, retrofitting plans alone could cost as much as £575 million. I ask again: what will the Scottish Government do, actively, to help to ease the burden, beyond the low level of support that has been offered?