Seòmar agus comataidhean

I recognise that I am stepping in on the bill at quite a late stage. I am here because Gillian Mackay is on maternity leave at the moment, but I am very much progressing the amendments that she pursued at stage 2. I am sure that Gillian Mackay would concur with Jackie Baillie’s comments that the dialogue with the minister about the amendments has been very constructive.

Section 36 of the bill outlines information-sharing requirements for professionals who work in public health and social care services. In order to create a care record system that is person-centred, that section of the legislation could be amended to outline measures that ensure that citizens have control of and access to their data as part of a real digital choice approach.

I do not want to disappoint Brian Whittle, but I will not move amendment 53 today. Following discussions with the minister between stages 2 and 3, I have carefully considered the concerns raised, in particular those concerning the potential implications for data protection law, which is reserved. There is a risk that the amendment could prevent health and care providers from sharing personal data in situations in which it is currently legal and appropriate to do so, especially if they are acting in the best interests of a person, including children or vulnerable adults. I recognise the concern that requiring consent in such cases might be impractical and even counterproductive.

However, I acknowledge Jackie Baillie’s amendment 2, which shares a similar aim of enhancing data safeguards. It makes progress in that sensitive area, and the Scottish Greens will support that amendment and Mr Whittle’s amendment 2A.

I thank the minister and officials for their constructive engagement on this important issue, which came up at stage 2. There is consensus on the group, and we are happy to support Mr Whittle’s amendments and the Government’s amendments.

Amendments 72 and 73 are designed to provide a clearer definition of independent advocacy services in order to avoid ambiguity in how the legislation is applied. The definition is important in ensuring that advocacy is genuinely independent, which is critical to people being properly supported to have their voices heard. I hope that the amendments will improve awareness and understanding of that support to help people to realise their human rights.

Amendment 78 would require the Scottish ministers to review and report on the provision of independent advocacy that is funded by them—first within two years of the provision coming into force and then every four years after that. The Scottish ministers will be required to publish and lay before Parliament a report outlining an assessment of where the provision of independent advocacy has increased during the review period. If that has not happened, the report should set out what steps the Government intends to take to ensure that the availability of independent advocacy services increases before the next review period ends.

The amendment would provide greater transparency of what is being done to ensure that independent advocacy is available to those who really need it in order to be empowered. It would ensure that Scottish ministers deliver on the approach that is supported by the Scottish Independent Advocacy Alliance—that of incrementally increasing funding year on year for independent advocacy. I take on board the minister’s comments that the sector does not want to be overwhelmed, but I think that the incremental approach will work well, and the amendments in this group would help to provide the right direction for that.

First and foremost, I pay tribute to the carers and care workers who have consistently looked to the Parliament to legislate for a fairer and much more compassionate social care system. Many of them have joined us here throughout the afternoon. I know that Anne’s family are here, too.

I also wish to thank the many third sector organisations—those that gave evidence throughout the different stages of the bill and everyone who has engaged with, shaped and challenged the bill. Their contribution has been invaluable.

I acknowledge my colleague Gillian Mackay, who worked tirelessly throughout the process. Her engagement and her amendments at stage 2, which were developed in close partnership with carers and supporting organisations, have been instrumental. I am proud to have lodged amendments that build on her work, particularly around strengthening independent advocacy. I also thank the Minister for Social Care, Mental Wellbeing and Sport for her constructive engagement with Gillian and, latterly, with me.

There is no hiding the fact that the bill has been enormously challenging, however. The intention and ambition behind the original bill deserve recognition. The National Care Service (Scotland) Bill aimed to build on years of efforts to better integrate health and social care. Going back to my time as a councillor, I remember how hard it was, in the early days, to bring that provision together on the ground.

Reform of this scale requires openness and collaboration, particularly when we are trying to fix issues that many people across the sector have been raising for years: unclear leadership, poor information sharing, fragmented funding streams, a postcode lottery for care and an overcomplicated landscape. Those cracks, which were already present, were deepened by the pandemic. We know how wide the gap can be between good policy ideas and real improvements on the ground that people feel.

Health and care reform has always been tough, and this bill is no exception. Integration, although necessary, remains deeply complex. My hope is that the Government reflects carefully on the missteps in this process. It is not time to retreat from that ambition but to learn how to do better next time. It is obviously important to involve people sooner, build consensus earlier and maintain focus on the people who the reforms are meant to serve.

As we get into the stage 3 debate, it is important to be honest. We wish that the bill had delivered more—more for those who rely on social care, for paid and unpaid carers and for the workforce. The need for improvement has not gone away; it remains urgent, and care reform must not be shelved.

It is clear that this is a long-term goal that must now be achieved incrementally. The bill has moved a long way from where it started. It is not perfect and key issues remain up for debate. However, we have arrived at a place today that reflects a more consensual approach from the sector, carers and parliamentarians across the chamber.

For many, the bill will feel like cautious progress, but it is progress nonetheless. It delivers some important changes—Anne’s law, centrally. That is huge progress. Strengthened independent advocacy, new rights for unpaid carers and steps towards fairer procurement are welcome and necessary.

I call on the Scottish Government to continue the work to implement the recommendations of the Feeley review, but it must do so while learning from its mistakes, engaging earlier and building wider consensus. Greater compromise will be essential, especially with local government and third sector partners in the unions. The complexity of care reform should never be a reason to give up, but it should be a real reason to lead.

As we conclude the final stage of the bill, what matters most is what happens next: how the legislation is implemented, how it delivers for the people it is meant to serve and how we respond to the many challenges that remain.

For all its difficulties, the bill has laid the groundwork for progress. It is not the transformation that many had hoped for, but it is a step towards a more equitable and consistent care system in Scotland. It will introduce important changes that will make a real difference to people’s lives, and I do not want to lose sight of that. Many members have spoken movingly about Anne’s law, and I pay tribute to her family. In addition, I think back to the confusion and desperation of our constituents during the Covid crisis.

We have made really important progress today. The improved rights for unpaid carers and the strengthening of independent advocacy are not small things and they should not be overlooked. They are important changes that this Parliament has made. They are the product of advocacy, campaigning and hard work across the sector, in the Parliament and beyond, and we must recognise those wins.

However, our job is not to rest on our laurels. We must not stop here; we must continue and deliver progress. The cracks in our social care system remain, and they have been made deeper by the years of underinvestment. We still face the same core issues: workforce pressures, fragmented structures, unclear lines of accountability and a system that too often leaves people navigating complexity when they are at their most vulnerable.

The ambition to bring more of the care sector into public hands should not be dropped. It should be pursued strategically and incrementally, recognising the financial and logistical challenges while staying true to the long-term goal. I hope that the Parliament can agree to that and that the Labour Party will not drop it but will work towards a more publicly delivered care service. Public care should continue to be seen as a necessary investment in the dignity and wellbeing of our communities.

If the Parliament is serious about the issue, we must treat the bill as the first step and as a foundation. That means committing to on-going dialogue with local authorities, the workforce and people who receive care. It means funding the changes that we legislate for, being honest when things do not go to plan and being open to doing things differently.

I acknowledge the constructive spirit in which the Opposition and the Government have worked together between stages 2 and 3, which has undoubtedly made the bill stronger.

The complexity of care reform is not an excuse to walk away from it; it is the very reason why we must rise to the challenge. We cannot lose sight of the people who are at the heart of the reforms, because they are counting on us—and will continue to count on us—to get this right.

The Greens are also sympathetic to this very limited extension of FOI law. Will the minister say a bit more about the consultation? Will it be a consultation specifically on extending FOI law to the social care sector? When will it be concluded? When should we expect any particular changes to FOI law to be brought forward on the back of the consultation, should the Scottish Government agree to take this further?

To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to secure a direct ferry route between Scotland and France. (S6F-04145)

I welcome that engagement with the cabinet secretary earlier this week. It is absolutely clear that a direct ferry service between Rosyth and Dunkirk would be a great win for the economy and the environment as well as being wonderful news for all of us who cherish connections with the rest of Europe.

I understand that the ferry operator DFDS wants to move forward and to begin sailings next spring, Forth Ports in Rosyth wants progress, the port of Dunkirk has bought into the idea and the Westminster Government is also supportive. The only thing that is getting in the way, First Minister, is Brexit bureaucracy regarding the location of a border control post. Time is ticking away because a resolution must be found by the end of June in order to secure the service. First Minister, are you able to take the lead in convening stakeholders to resolve the remaining issues and get that over the line?

No—that is fine. Between the two committees, I was just getting it clear in my head that that has been resolved.

The other week, NatureScot said that it could make those changes if there was guidance from the Government. If there is a big issue with features encroaching on to existing designated sites, why does the Government not just issue guidance to NatureScot about how regulation 9D could be used?

It seems that this is the only issue that has come up in committee beyond the submission of PDF electronic documents. I am struggling to hear from any industry sector body how the current provisions of the habs regs are restricting economic growth and other benefits. I am hearing about PDFs and a technical issue about site designation; I am not hearing any other reasons. I still do not understand why this power is needed.

NatureScot says that if the Government gives it guidance, it can act on it. Why are you not giving guidance to NatureScot when DEFRA is clearly giving guidance in England?

Rhoda Grant raised the issue of invasive non-native species. I can barely remember this, but I think that INNS came up in 2004, in the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Bill. In fact, I might have lodged an amendment on the issue, back in those early days. The issue is getting worse. I have become aware of NatureScot’s powers to access sites, emerging issues around the expansion of Sitka spruce into native woodland restoration areas and growing issues around a pheasant population that is exploding. Those were not necessarily huge issues 20 years ago, but there are now big issues to do with INNS that could restrict our ability to restore ecosystems. Would you be open to looking at those issues in the bill? It feels like this is an opportunity to make a change, given that the previous bill that considered INNS was in 2004—a long time ago.