Seòmar agus comataidhean

In short, absolutely—I know that we are tight for time.

If the minister is actually in charge, she must show leadership. The poor performance from the minister in this matter cannot be overstated, and the discussion in committee demonstrated that.

To date, pursuing the bill has cost the taxpayer £30 million—money that has been wasted due to the incompetence of the minister and the SNP. Contrary to the minister’s assertions today and over the past few weeks, the bill does not deliver the Feeley recommendations—it has never touched on delivering them. The minister would not take advice on that. We have seen no commitment to do that or to progress anything with real urgency.

The Government simply does not listen. Not only has it wasted millions of pounds, but it has used up hours of parliamentary time. Most important, it has let down vulnerable and disabled people, as well as their unpaid carers and staff. Yesterday, eventually, in reply to my colleague Paul Sweeney at committee, the minister said that many of the recommendations in the Feeley review can be implemented without primary legislation.

My colleague Jackie Baillie has, over many months, and again today, outlined the legislative vehicles for fixing social care now. We could move forward on collective bargaining, on the essential Anne’s law and on the right to breaks, but what does the cabinet secretary do, and what does the minister do in committee? They talk. The Government talks; it does not deliver. Our communities would like to see action from this tired and out-of-touch Administration. For change to happen, the wheels need to be in motion now—in fact, they should have been in motion for the past few years.

The UK Labour Government budget has delivered £789 million of health-related consequentials this year and will deliver £1.72 billion for our NHS and social care next year. This Scottish Government must decide how it will deliver change in Scotland.

I will close on this point, Deputy Presiding Officer, as I know that we are tight for time. People’s care packages are being cut, delayed discharges are at a record high and staff are leaving in their droves. That is not about the UK budget, and it is not about the actions of another Parliament; it is about this Scottish Government in the here and now.

I would have liked to have said more, Deputy Presiding Officer. The reality is that we must work to get this right for the people in our communities, but it does not appear that this Scottish Government can deliver.

I think that people will find that answer quite helpful, because we get asked about the agency.

I have a more general question, if you do not mind my asking it. I have been listening carefully to the points that you have been making, in your leadership role as the minister for the national care service. When you make your recommendations to the Cabinet, do you emphasise that we should stick to trying to get agreement on the national care service, or do you give advice on three or four things that we know that we can do now and that we should be moving forward with? I am interested to know what balance you give, as the leader in that area, when you speak to your colleagues.

I accept what you say about the outcome that you are looking for. My question is, do you think that, at this point in time, you should be doing some of the things that can be done now quickly? Would that benefit the whole group that you have said you want to get outcomes for?

Thank you.

I have a question about the national social work agency, as stakeholders have approached many of us about it. I will then ask a more general question, if you do not mind.

Is it the intention to move forward with a national social work agency? I think that everyone agrees that we do not need legislation for that, but people are keen to know whether the agency would be just for social work or whether it would include the wider healthcare professional group.

In the statement, the minister acknowledged that

“We all know that the status quo is not an option.”

However, it feels as though Government ministers are the only people who do not understand that. For unpaid carers, it is quite simply an understatement. The labour of unpaid carers in Scotland saves the economy £15.9 billion each year. There are now no meaningful plans in place to guarantee breaks for unpaid carers. What is the Government doing to rectify that now?

I thank Roz McCall for bringing this significant issue to the attention of the Parliament. This is an important debate, and I am sure that many members will be able to speak about personal experiences, as it is estimated that more than half of Scotland’s adult population have a close personal connection to someone who has had a stroke.

Given the time constraints, I will not make some of the remarks that I was intending to, as many members have given the reasons why urgency is so important. It is critical that public awareness campaigns that focus on identifying stroke symptoms are supported and, of course, adequately resourced. It will be good to hear what the cabinet secretary has to say about that in his closing remarks.

The national FAST stroke awareness campaign, which is led by Chest Heart & Stroke Scotland, offers a chance to increase awareness of the importance of seeking medical help as soon as possible when people experience stroke symptoms. In the event of a stroke, timing is critical. The treatments of thrombolysis and thrombectomy are time sensitive, so awareness of symptoms is important. In my region, 10 patients received such treatment quickly in a local hospital in the NHS Ayrshire and Arran health board area, so I understand that it is important to invest in public awareness campaigns so that people get to hospitals whenever they can.

Public awareness campaigns are imperative not only in promoting health behaviours but in providing greater awareness of symptoms and the link with improved health outcomes. It is imperative that the Government invests in prevention to improve health outcomes across Scotland, especially in our most deprived communities, because people living in those areas are more likely to have experienced a major cardiovascular event, such as a stroke.

A key aspect of prevention is awareness raising, so the Scottish Government must recognise the importance of health awareness campaigns and listen to charities that are calling on the Government to deliver the priorities that are set out in the “Stroke Improvement Plan 2023”.

We have heard about the very important FAST campaign. Although strokes are generally more prevalent among the older population, the number of younger people who are experiencing strokes is increasing, so we need to make such campaigns accessible to that generation.

Roz McCall’s motion mentions the BE FAST campaign, and I absolutely recognise what she has said in promoting the effectiveness of that campaign. It is encouraging to hear about it, and I urge the Scottish Government to explore the campaign’s effectiveness and to consider how we can add it to our prevention and awareness campaigns.

I hope that the main message from the debate is clear: we need action as soon as possible, and we all want this to be a priority. Therefore, I ask the cabinet secretary to respond favourably.

People in South Scotland continue to report to me that, a year after an independent review highlighted multiple systemic problems with NHS audiology services, they are still being left to navigate a bureaucratic maze just to get a proper diagnosis. Will the minister commit to dealing urgently with that bureaucratic maze?

What I am saying is this: let us have a discussion about what is actually happening. I hope that, as I go through my speech, we will be able to have a think about that.

In today’s debate, I ask the Government—indeed, the cabinet secretary—to recognise the powers that we have here in Scotland, to acknowledge the increase in funding that is coming to Scotland, and to debate the transformation that we can have with a UK Labour Government that, by the admission of the Scottish Government, the cabinet secretary and others, is seeking to have a positive relationship with devolved Administrations. I repeat—a positive relationship with devolved Administrations. It is an important point.

I accept that the public, public services and the third sector rightly have an interest in the issue of how we fund public services. It is important that, if the Government of the day alters that funding, we provide people with clarity as to why those decisions have been made. People have a right to know, which is why we should be clear and transparent in all our Parliaments—and, of course, in this one.

As the Labour amendment indicates, this move is, in the long term, about improving public services and getting this country on a firm footing.

Of course.