Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am in the final minute of my speech.

How can those nations do it, yet Scotland cannot? We have similar populations and we have some similar communities. The difference is that they have control not only over the social policies—I agree with the Labour members on those—but over their economies. They are independent countries. They tax justly; they tax the right people to deliver the services that we all want to see.

Opposition members come back here and collectively ask for more and more. In the summing-up speeches, I would like to hear how those things will be paid for and which budgets the money will come from. The Opposition should not mislead people into thinking that such things can be done when our hands are tied financially.

Will the member take an intervention on that point?

I am tackling the national care service. Dr Gulhane’s point was that it would interfere with local design and delivery. That is not what is in the proposals, which can be challenged at a later date.

All the proposals take money. Where does that money come from? That takes us back to everything that we debate in the Scottish Parliament.

Currently, the biggest chunk of the Scottish Government budget goes to the NHS. Over 80 per cent of that is allocated to fixed costs—for hospitals and for all the staff, laundry, transport, ambulance services, medicines, GP services and so on. If we want to do more, then money must be raised, but we have very limited tax-raising powers. We have some powers over income tax levels, but none on VAT, companies’ tax or fuel duties. Given that, the list of demands in the Opposition amendments—although I think them perfectly reasonable—fall at the first fence: funding.

We know that £770 million has already been taken from our budgets to mitigate Tory cuts that affect the very vulnerable in Scotland. In real terms, 5.2 per cent has been cut from our resource budget and 9.7 per cent from our capital budget—those are not Scottish Government figures, but come from the independent Scottish Fiscal Commission.

To look for nations that have the highest ranking for care of the elderly at home, we should cast our eyes over the North Sea to Finland, Norway, Sweden and Denmark. Those countries are internationally recognised as topping the charts; they are small independent nations with taxation powers to ensure that their care services meet demand with compassion—and can be funded.

I congratulate my colleague on bringing this motion to the Scottish Parliament and the passion with which she delivered her speech, and I welcome members of the Cunninghame Graham Society and of the family.

Unashamedly—and not just because of the fundamental contribution that he made to the cause of Scottish independence, his colourful and, indeed flamboyant, life, and his brave and reforming zeal—I claim Cunninghame Graham as a distant relative through our shared surname. I forgive the missing E, as I am sure that we all came from the same stock.

What a life—well worthy of the Hollywood touch or, at the very least, a documentary on television. With his exotic family background, his exploits in Argentina, his meeting with Buffalo Bill—I do not know whether there is a picture somewhere, but if there is, I want to see it—his fencing, his horse riding and so on, you would not have anticipated that he was a man who would convert from Scottish Labour, which he founded with Keir Hardie, to the cause of Scottish independence, which has been close to my own heart these past 50 years.

As far back as 1886, Cunninghame Graham helped to establish the Scottish Home Rule Association. On one occasion in the House of Commons, he joked that he wanted a

“national parliament with the pleasure of knowing that the taxes were wasted in Edinburgh instead of London.”

Yes, let us make our own mistakes. I am with him on that. We cannot do worse than the current UK Government—sorry about that, Mr Kerr. Cunninghame Graham’s support for independence for Scotland led to him being the first honorary president of the Scottish National Party in 1934. He was decades ahead of his time, not just in the independence cause but in his determination and commitment to social justice.

His main concerns in the House of Commons were the plight of the unemployed and the preservation of civil liberties. He did more than just talk—he walked the walk. He attended the protest demonstration in Trafalgar Square on 13 November 1887 that was broken up by the police and became known as bloody Sunday. He was badly beaten during his arrest and taken to Bow Street police station. He was found guilty for his involvement in the demonstration, sentenced to six weeks’ imprisonment and sent to Pentonville prison. What a man.

After his release, he continued his campaign to improve the rights of working people and to curb their economic exploitation. He was suspended from the House of Commons—I am beginning to like this man more and more—in December 1880 for protesting about the working conditions of chain makers. His response to the Speaker of the House was rebuked for his use of the word “damn” and his saying, “I never withdraw”, and it was later used by George Bernard Shaw in “Arms and the Man”. This man was too radical even for the French, and that is saying something. After making a speech at Calais, he was actually shut out of going back to France ever again.

He was anti-imperialist and he despised British jingoism. I share so many values with him: the abolition of the House of the Lords—every box ticked—universal suffrage; the nationalisation of land, mines and other industries; free school meals; and republicanism. There we go. I think that he is great. What a man. I am so glad that he lived well into his active 80s. If one were to ask me who I would like to meet from the past, well, he is right at the top.

As others have done, we must ask ourselves: where does he feature in standard Scottish history books? How many of our schoolchildren, or, indeed, Scottish people, know of this extraordinary, difficult and extremely exciting man? If they do not, why not? I commend Dr Munro for his biography. Let us hope that it is on some people’s reading lists.

Again, I congratulate the member and Dr Munro. It has been a pleasure to take part in the debate and I have enjoyed every minute.

It is short. I hope that the member, in her summing up, will give the costings for the demands that her party makes at the end of its amendment about ending non-residential charges, reversing the narrowing of eligibility for care packages, reopening the independent living fund and paying care workers £15 an hour. Those are all laudable aims, but I would like to know the costs, please.

The cabinet secretary referenced Tom Arthur, who recently visited Galashiels and Penicuik town centres, in my constituency, where he saw the work of local people. Will the Scottish Government liaise with local development trusts such as Energise Galashiels, which are looking at repurposing commercial properties for domestic use?

At this late stage in the debate, it is obvious that I will reprise some of the arguments that other members have made.

As other members have done, I whole-heartedly pay tribute to and thank all carers, professional, paid and unpaid. Their commitment to the people for whom they care, and the kindness—an essential—with which they deliver care must never be overlooked or underestimated.

On the Labour motion, Covid has indeed exposed failings and deficiencies right across the care sector and particularly in the care home sector. Reform is now a necessity. Hence the Scottish Government’s commitment to a national care service—but I agree with members that that is for the future; we must face the here and now.

First, on recruitment, at least two factors are in operation: Brexit, which the Labour motion sidestepped; and pay levels. In the public sector, the Scottish Government can take action and has done so. In the past year, adult social care workers in commissioned services in Scotland had their minimum hourly rate increased by more than 10 per cent, to £10.50 an hour. That is the public sector.

On the private sector, I am sympathetic to Alex Rowley’s points—and I heard what he said about employment legislation, which I hope means that he thinks that powers in that regard should come to the Scottish Parliament—but we have no control over the private sector and its contracts, terms and conditions. All that we can do is try to persuade.

I am in my last minute.

We need an emergency budget here and now to deal with those factors. Tinkering around the edges is not good enough.

I say finally to members on the Labour benches that we are mitigating all the time for a Tory Government with only six MPs elected to Westminster.

I have had enough of mitigating—we have seen £770 million go towards mitigating so far this year. I do not like to choose between the worthy and the less worthy. We should not have to do that. We should be independent, deal with these issues here and now, deal with our economy, have a proper benefits system and never, ever have to suffer Tory austerity again.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My card was in and I tried to vote, but the thing had disconnected—it was nothing to do with me. [Laughter.]

I would have voted yes.

I am a socialist, like Jackie Baillie, and I want her to take on board this fact: I do not like putting money into the private sector to beef up profits and returns for shareholders. That is the issue: the private sector is still profiting from looking after people; that is not what I want.

We cannot interfere with companies’ contracts. I welcome a movement towards employment law powers coming here.

I must move on, given the short time that I have—I knew that this would happen. Pay is not the only issue for people in the care sector. I want there to be career progression, so that individuals who wish to transition from care to the nursing profession can do so. According to Queen Margaret University, there can be direct entry into nursing, with accelerated entry into a master of nursing degree in year 2, if the individual meets certain requirements. I am not saying for one moment that one profession is superior to the other; they are different but complementary. However, that allows people to see, if they wish, career progression, which is important to all of us.

On the crisis that we are in, I do not know what planet Sandesh Gulhane is on: the governor of the Bank of England has referred to “apocalyptic” food prices, and the governor of the Bank of England is not known for hyperbole. An “apocalyptic” rise in the cost of living touches more on people who are stuck at home, whether as paid carers or unpaid carers, who may have ventilators and who will have heating, laundry and everything else to deal with, including enormous difficulties with prices, so—