Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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?

I want to come back to threatened species status, cabinet secretary. You described the need for a bit more latitude in the way that that is interpreted. In your letter to the committee you said that that could be put in place, either in the explanatory notes to the bill or in the bill itself. Would you consider an amendment in that regard, perhaps one that covers species that are in decline as well as those that are threatened?

I want to return to the subject of offshore wind. I think that the Government has said that its offshore wind ambitions are not achievable in the current system. I might have asked you a similar question when you gave evidence to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee on the legislative consent memorandum for the United Kingdom Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which will give the Scottish ministers some flexibility in relation to powers under the Electricity Act 1989.

I have a similar question on the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill. How will you use the powers under part 2 of the bill to provide the flexibility that is needed, which is particularly important for offshore wind transmission infrastructure? I think that that is the point that was made in relation to the UK bill. When you spoke about the UK bill at the NZET Committee, I think that you said that the intention would not be to change the environmental assessment regime, although I might have picked that up wrongly.

I think that that has been stated by the Government, in the context of the current system.

It has been put to us that section 8 powers were not used in the past because using them would require a high burden of proof, which could be challenged through judicial review. For many years, there has been the suspicion that there has been an inability to issue a robust section 8 notice in a way that would not be legally challenged on the basis of the evidence. Do you think that the bill changes that, particularly with the new grounds for nature restoration? Does that provide more legal certainty now?

I was wondering whether there is precedent for having an environmental regulator as an adviser when it ultimately holds power over regulation. Is that something that NatureScot is already doing?

Ms Wilson described NatureScot as having a wider advisory role, but this is quite specific. It is about advising in a particular area on deer management plans, while also having a regulatory function. Is there precedent for how NatureScot and other environmental regulators have managed those two responsibilities? How have they dealt with the perception that there might be a conflict of interest?

Why are the goals for 2030 and 2045 not in the bill?