I want to come in briefly on the group as a whole and say that I support what Carol Mochan and Jackie Baillie have already said. However, I hope that, in summing up, Jackie Baillie will cover what the totality of the impact will be for local authorities. The Scottish Government is not always the one that is doing the procuring in the first place, and throughout the bill process, one of our concerns has been about autonomy for local authorities. I hope that Jackie Baillie might be able to address those considerations in her summing up.

The testimony from people at Skye house is horrific. I hope that the Government is supporting those who went through that, and that it is ensuring that they get the mental health support that they deserve.

Although NHS Lothian and NHS Tayside were not covered in the “Disclosure” programme, will the minister ask those boards to look into practices at their in-patient units to ensure that any issues in relation to care standards are properly investigated and resolved, and to ensure that the issue is not more widespread?

All the money that has been announced for Grangemouth is absolutely welcome, but trying to get money out quickly does not always mean that that money gets spent in the correct projects for the area. At the Grangemouth community council meeting last Thursday, 120 people were in the room, asking about the industrial future of Grangemouth and wanting to resolve some of the disconnect between them and industry. How can the cabinet secretary implore people to resolve that disconnect as well as ensure that projects are value for money and will support both skills and the local community?

The people’s panel recommended that the proposed human rights bill be introduced in this parliamentary session in order to support the implementation of the charter of rights for people affected by substance use. Why does the Scottish Government feel that the bill does not require to be introduced in this session in order to support the implementation of the charter, which was published in December last year? Crucially, outside of that, how will the Government ensure that the charter is implemented?

Good morning, everyone. You made two recommendations relating to people with lived experience in the statutory services workforce: to increase their number and to ensure that there is equitable pay and fair conditions for them. How should that be done to ensure that it is not the tick-box exercise that you speak about in your report?

You mentioned stigma in your response to Jeremy Balfour. In the evidence that you took, did the people who you spoke to talk about specific mechanisms for meaningfully involving lived and living experience voices not only to tackle stigma but to do more of the service planning?

Good morning. The people’s panel made two recommendations under the theme of participation, rights and lived experience, which related to lived experience in the workforce. What is the Scottish Government doing to ensure that employing people with lived experience is not simply a tick-box exercise and that there is equitable pay, fair working conditions and good support for that group, in comparison with what is available for equivalent public sector workers?

The report from The Promise Scotland says that

“some people, some organisations, and some systems are not yet doing enough, and this risks the country as a whole failing to deliver the promise.”

What is the minister doing with the organisations that are not doing enough, and across portfolios, to ensure that individual intransigence in organisations is not risking the Promise as a whole?

I thank the First Minister for providing advance sight of his statement and I welcome the £25 million that has been announced.

However, the closure still poses the risk of a huge potential loss of skilled workers from the area, and there is still concern about the impact on small businesses in Grangemouth that are reliant on the refinery workers for their business. Can the First Minister outline what extra support could be made available to support some of those small businesses as they adapt? Will the Government consider proposals for the use of the £25 million for projects at sites around Grangemouth that are outside the Ineos compound?

Throughout the debate, many members have mentioned the various sectors of the economy that will be impacted. I will leave the intricacies of elasticity, among other things, to Liz Smith and Michelle Thomson, but I believe that the immediate impact on the health and social care sector is particularly stark and warrants highlighting.

As has been mentioned throughout the debate, the Labour UK Government’s employer national insurance contribution changes represent a substantial financial and operational burden for third sector organisations and social care providers across Scotland. Workforce costs already account for the majority of expenditure in the sectors, which leaves little room for them to contend with those further increases.

The rise in employer national insurance contributions is especially unsustainable for smaller providers and for those with high staffing requirements, many of which are already operating on extremely tight margins. The direct results of the changes could lead to real risks of service reductions, staff lay-offs and closures, which will further jeopardise the care sector, which so many people rely on and which we should all be fighting to fund better and stabilise.

Scottish Care’s analysis points to the fact that the changes to national insurance rates that were announced in the UK budget will create additional financial burdens on independent care providers in a dangerous and inequitable—which is not easy to say at this point on a Monday—way. Scottish Care has outlined the potential for care homes to close as a result of the change. The people in those care homes still need care and places have to be found, which is putting more burden on an already stretched system. If care homes close, it will cost the public sector more to find places for those people.

Labour trumpets its increased block grant to the Scottish Government, but what use will that be if we end up having to find emergency care places as a result of the decision? The Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland—the ALLIANCE—alongside other third sector organisations has raised serious concerns about the financial strain that is being caused by increased national insurance contributions. It has signed a joint letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, following a survey of its organisation members that found that 85 per cent are worried about the additional costs, with 62 per cent fearing service cuts, 82 per cent being concerned about financial stability and 71 per cent expecting recruitment and retention challenges. Many have called for exemptions or increased funding to offset that burden.

Meanwhile, data from the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations estimates that the change will cost third sector organisations in Scotland £75 million next year, which further threatens the sector’s ability to deliver essential services.

The list does not stop there. The Coalition of Care and Support Providers in Scotland expects not-for-profit providers within its community alone to face an additional £30 million bill next year, due to the rate increase and threshold reduction—costs that it cannot afford and has no clear way to cover. In recognising the urgent need for action, the CCPS has also written to the chancellor, calling for full exemption for public service social care providers. It warns that, without that, the consequences will be devastating. That could very soon lead to the loss of vital community-based support, which will increase the strain on the NHS and the Scottish Prison Service and put a heavier burden on unpaid carers, many of whom already struggle to balance employment with wellbeing.

The Labour UK Government’s failure to recognise and account for the impacts of the changes on social care and third sector organisations raises further concerns about the lack of value being placed on social care, and about awareness of the perilous state of the sustainability of the sector. The Nuffield Trust estimates that the employer NIC changes will cost independent sector social care employers in the region of an additional £940 million in 2025-26. It also points out, most notably, that the Government seemed to be aware of those consequences.

An initial table that was published by the OBR on its economic and fiscal outlook included £5.5 billion provision for compensation for ENICs for public sector employers and adult social care. However, that was later revised through the removal of any mention of adult social care and reduction of the allocation to £4.7 billion. Officials have not yet explained the £800 million reduction, but, based on independent calculations, it appears to reflect an estimate of the ENICs change’s financial impact on adult social care. That strongly suggests that the UK Government understands the sector’s vulnerability but has chosen not to provide the necessary support. Alarmingly, major adult care provider failure is listed in the national risk register, which warns that such failures could severely disrupt care for those who depend on it. Without urgent intervention to stabilise the sector now, it could be decimated.

Many members have mentioned this afternoon how hopeful they were at the end of the Conservative Government and their disappointment at the mess that the decision has caused. Alex Cole-Hamilton, Lorna Slater and Kevin Stewart, among others, mentioned the other options that are available to the UK Government, none of which it seems even to have considered.

A few members mentioned the impact on hospices. Given the charitable nature of hospices, we are passing a burden back to them to raise money from people in their communities to plug the gap. That points to the effects that many members have warned of beyond the immediate rise in ENICs. Their needing to raise more money to plug gaps in services is a horrendous situation for charities to be in.

Today, the Scottish Greens call on the UK Government to, at the very least, fully fund the increase in employer national insurance contributions for commissioned services and arm’s-length external organisations. The additional costs will place significant strain on vital services and the organisations that deliver them, many of which are already operating under extremely challenging financial and operational conditions. Those providers have an unsustainable burden, with many already grappling with the consequences of having very little funding and of Brexit and its devastating effect on staff retention.

If the additional cost of ENICs is not addressed, it not only will compromise the ability of those organisations to maintain the services that people rely on but could also lead to cuts, closures and reduced quality of services. The consequences of that would be far reaching, impacting on the most vulnerable members of society and further exacerbating existing challenges in our health and social care systems. The UK Government must act now to ensure that those organisations are fully supported, thereby safeguarding the essential services that contribute to the wellbeing and support of our communities.