Seòmar agus comataidhean

I pay tribute to the social care staff and unpaid carers of all ages who work so hard to take care of people under often very difficult circumstances. Low pay, understaffing and a lack of access to proper breaks from caring have all placed enormous pressure on people who give their all day in, day out, and it is not an exaggeration to say that the sector is in crisis. Historic underfunding has led to long waits for care and support, which is too often only available, if at all, when people reach crisis point.

We can all reflect on the real experiences of our constituents and our own families. Parents are denied social care for their son when a package would transform the lives of everyone in the family. A grandfather is trapped in a hospital bed, waiting for social work and the NHS to finally agree a package so that he can return home. Despite the passage of the Care Reform (Scotland) Act 2025, fundamental reform of the sector is still needed, because the ambitions of the independent review of adult social care have not yet been realised.

For example, we are yet to achieve ethical commissioning, which would recognise the value of the third sector as equal partners in delivering social care. Representatives from the sector are clear that the current commissioning model is harmful and unsustainable. According to the Scottish Association for Mental Health,

“Ethical commissioning should be based on partnership and cooperation between commissioners, social care providers and people in receipt of social care, rather than the existing model of competition which prioritises cost.”

In their closing speeches, I want to hear from ministers about what steps they are taking to ensure that genuine ethical commissioning is taking place in the sector.

In 2021, the Scottish Government committed to ending non-residential social care charges, but no meaningful progress has been made since then. As a report that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation published last month highlighted,

“disabled people face deepening poverty and rising costs”.

Disabled people’s access to social care support is critical to the realisation of their human rights, but they are all too often denied those rights by a system that brutalises them and fails to meet their basic needs. A Glasgow Disability Alliance survey that was conducted last year revealed what that means in practice for disabled people—93 per cent were worried about money, 71 per cent could not meet their needs on their income and 67 per cent could not access social care that actually met their needs.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation report found that, at the same time as disabled people and their households are facing rising costs, local authorities are making decisions to increase non-residential social care support charges and raise eligibility thresholds for accessing support. The report is clear that the Scottish Government and COSLA should work together, without delay, to deliver a clear timeline for removing non-residential care charges.

The SNP’s amendment is right to note that the UK Government’s hostile immigration policies are starting to have a “devastating impact” on the sector. Scottish Care has warned that UK Labour’s proposal to extend the qualifying period for settlement for legal migrants, particularly the increase from five to 15 years for those on health and social care visas, will have a “profoundly negative impact” on care services across Scotland. We cannot afford to lose those hard-working people from the sector. I urge Scottish Labour to acknowledge the impact that those policies will have, and are having, in contributing to the crisis that exists in the social care sector.

I am in my closing sentences.

I urge the Scottish Government to redouble its efforts, using all the powers that it has, to fund and reform a social care system that is genuinely fit for the 21st century.

We have been waiting a long time for that action plan, and I will be delighted to see the outcome of it.

I have a constituent who has been institutionalised in multiple hospitals for the past six years because there is no other option for him. That has resulted in direct harm to him and distress for his mum. We have recently had news that appropriate facilities for him might be opening up in the region, but they are still under development. Until they are opened, he is likely to remain stuck in hospital. Does the minister agree that more must be done now to support people such as my constituent and the many other institutionalised people across Scotland to exercise their basic human rights to independent living and to be included in their local communities?

To ask the Scottish Government, further to the assessment by the Scottish Human Rights Commission that disabled and autistic people are not being supported to exercise their right to independent living, as enshrined in article 19 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, what discussions the social justice secretary has had with ministerial colleagues regarding action that can be taken to address this. (S6O-05216)

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

I did not, and that is why I have lodged amendments 1 to 3, which would delete part 2. Putting that proposal on the table enables the Government to think again, between stage 2 and stage 3, about the purpose of the bill and about where we need flexibility.

I do not think that giving ministers an indefinite power effectively to rewrite environmental assessment and habitats regulations provisions is appropriate for a bill that is primarily about tackling the nature emergency. In theory, that could allow the watering down of 40 years’ worth of EU environmental legislation, and it would ignore the Parliament’s desire to keep pace with European Union legislation. Given the evidence, I am struggling to see what the case is for that flexibility. We are still struggling to understand how sites are already designated under the habitats regulations, what the process is for that and why there is no flexibility to make adjustments that could assist with nature restoration.

I will listen to the arguments. I have heard the arguments from Alasdair Allan, and later I would like to hear the cabinet secretary’s reflections on where she is in relation to part 2, but I think that it is important to have the option that I have presented on the table. I will push it to the vote, because we need to know where we stand, at least at stage 2. We will see which amendments get passed in this group, but I would like there to be further discussion between stage 2 and stage 3, because I do not feel that we will have concluded our thinking on the matter by the end of our consideration today.

Amendment 26 picks up on the committee’s recommendation at stage 1 to revisit the sunset clause on the keeping-pace power in the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021. That power is due to expire in 2027, but the Parliament has the option to extend it to 2031. This is an area where the ability to adjust habitats regulations and environmental assessment will be needed in the future if we are to remain broadly in line with the European legislation framework that has protected the environment across Europe—nature knows no boundaries.

The committee’s stage 1 report said:

“the Committee does not expect these suggestions to have significant policy implications. They would also give the Scottish Government the opportunity to undertake a thorough review of the operation of the EIA legislation and Habitats Regulations, as suggested by some stakeholders”,

but not to break out of the European policy framework. That is the context for amendment 26. Obviously, we cannot fix environmental legislation in a moment in time, but the stakeholders who gave evidence seem to believe that the existing system provides flexibility, and we need flexibility in relation to alignment with future EU laws. Amendment 26 would give that flexibility.

That is my starting point for discussion. Let us see where we get to.

Do you see that there is already a balance in the habitats regulations? There is the overriding public interest test, and it is possible to make decisions that strike a balance between climate and nature—indeed, Governments do so all the time. What is wrong with our current system?

I appreciate the comments made by Alasdair Allan and the amendments in this group that have been lodged by others to make sense of part 2 of the bill. As a committee, we have struggled to understand what the purpose of part 2 is. We had evidence that flexibility is required to enable the submission of PDF copies of environmental assessments, and we had debates and discussion about the need for flexibility around environmental assessments and habitats regulations in relation to renewable energy. It has unfolded, in the course of the evidence, that we already have that flexibility in both the environmental assessment and the habitats regulations regimes. There are improvements in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that can facilitate the development of renewable electricity, which the cabinet secretary has reflected on. At this point, I am still struggling to understand what the point of part 2 is.

I have listened carefully to what the cabinet secretary said, and the belief that your amendments would effectively make part 2 watertight. I have my doubts, and I believe that a number of stakeholders will have their doubts about that, too.

I guess that what I am asking is, would you be prepared to have further conversations between stage 2 and stage 3 if your amendments go through? I should say that I am going to move my amendment to delete the whole section, because I think that it would be very easy to rebuild it in a way that is proportionate. Nevertheless, would you be open to conversation around potential unintended consequences that may emerge, even though you have attempted to bring in some safeguards through working with the cabinet secretary around the non-regression provision?

I am sorry to have cut across you, cabinet secretary. I was listening to what you said about regulation 9D and the need for perhaps more flexibility around site designations. If that is the only purpose of part 2 of the bill, why was that not brought forward in it? Why is the purpose of this so narrowly defined that we are only really talking about site designations and flexibility rather than the raft of other ways in which that section of the bill could be used to amend both habitats regulations and environmental impact assessments?