Chamber and committees

In recent years, we have seen reproductive rights go backwards in countries around the world such as the US, Poland and Brazil. However, there are glimmers of hope, with rights expanding in Argentina and Colombia, and the right to an abortion being enshrined in the constitution in France.

Does the First Minister agree that safe access zones must be the first stop in advancing rights in Scotland, and does he believe that we should go further, including providing abortion in Scotland up to the legal limit, ensuring equitable access to in vitro fertilisation, and removing abortion from criminal law?

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the current 40 Days for Life protests. (S6F-02931)

In its evidence, the Law Society of Scotland said that arrangements for penalties and appeals should

“reflect the desire to ensure compliance, rather than being used as a mechanism to raise revenue”

and that the penalties should be well publicised. Are the potential penalties and consequences for non-compliance being communicated as part of your engagement with industry? Do you feel that the right balance is being struck between improving compliance and raising revenue?

Do you foresee any other operational issues, especially in the early days of the scheme being live? For example, there have sometimes been issues with getting data across from HMRC. Do you see that being a potential issue? Are such issues being worked out at the moment?

That is great. Thank you.

Organisations are concerned about how disposable or single-use vapes are defined. They are concerned that manufacturers might try to add a USB port to a disposable vape to get around potential regulation, as well as about the potential scope of exemptions in the regulations. Will the minister provide some assurances on those issues and detail any other work that is under way while we wait for a ban to be in place, such as instructing retailers to put vapes behind cover and tackling advertising?

To ask the Scottish Government what public health measures are being taken to minimise harm from vaping, prior to the introduction of the proposed ban on single-use vapes. (S6O-03179)

I have no relevant interests to declare.

Absolutely. I thank Emma Harper for mentioning SAMH in particular because, for many of those carers, the mental health aspect—the trauma of being unable to get to their loved ones—exacerbated the situation, and that led to the want and need for Anne’s law in the first place.

As I have said previously, although I appreciate that Anne’s law is currently proposed to relate only to social care settings, given what many people, including me, experienced during the pandemic with loved ones being in hospital, I believe that it should be extended to cover those settings, too.

We also all agree on the creation of a right to short breaks for carers. However, the appropriate monitoring will need to be in place to ensure that it has the desired effect and is delivered consistently across the country and, crucially, to carers of all ages. As co-convener of the cross-party group on carers, I note that we have heard about the difficulties that some carers face in knowing where to go for support and help or because they have not been identified as a carer in the first place. I hope that that will be factored into the on-going work on the bill.

The general principles of the bill mark a shift in the way in which care is considered. We particularly welcome the positive language on the value of care. It describes care as “an investment in society”. Meeting the aspirations in the bill, such as recognising that meeting individuals’ needs is essential to achieve their human rights and that fair work principles should be key to the delivery of services, is essential if we are to change the way that care is currently delivered.

We have heard from many organisations and individuals about the appetite that many have for change and reform of social care. The bill lays the foundations for a national care service, allowing for a big part of the substantive detail to be co-designed with people who access support, those who deliver it and unpaid carers. I have been clear in committee that we need to ensure that that is done in a sustainable manner for those who are involved in the co-design process. There are a huge number of workstreams and we need to make sure that those who give their experience are supported to do so without there being a detrimental effect on them.

Structural reorganisation will go only part of the way towards realising the ambition of change and reform in social care. Delivery and implementation of change is vital both locally and nationally if we are to make a real difference to social care. That will also have to be carefully monitored to ensure that it has the desired outcomes.

Although framework bills are difficult to scrutinise, I believe that one of the bill’s potential strengths lies in the fact that it is a framework bill. I believe that it is right to analyse the impact of reform and then adapt what is in the secondary legislation to improve outcomes, correct any unintended consequences and adapt to new circumstances, with appropriate scrutiny mechanisms attached.

We must be wary and note that having a legal duty to collaborate will not in itself lead to effective collaboration. Much of it will rely on consistent leadership and cultures across health and social care, which we have heard are not the reality everywhere.

Whereas the engagement on the bill’s general principles has been positive, we heard in committee that concerns remain about how some of them would be achieved in practice.

If we want the national care service to be as successful as possible, we must ensure that it is viable and that it addresses the issues flagged at stage 1. I welcome the committee’s commitment to a more in-depth stage 2 process and look forward to hearing more evidence from organisations and individuals on any potential changes. Several important stakeholders who have recommended that the bill passes have also been clear that there are substantial amendments to be made at stage 2. For example, the Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland recommends amendments that support the full and equal membership of people with lived experience in reformed IJBs and on the national care service board. That would include being given full voting rights and a duty to include multiple members with lived experience if any meeting is to be considered quorate. I also believe there should be workforce representation on the board.

There is very little time to get through everything that I would have liked to get through, but the establishment of a national care service must be informed by the voices of lived experience, including those who access support and care, the workforce and unpaid carers.

The national care service offers an opportunity to improve people’s experiences of rights-based, person-centred social care, if it is implemented in a way that responds to the concerns and experiences of people who are accessing social care as well as the workforce, and if it implements the recommendations of the independent review of adult social care.

First, I offer apologies from Maggie Chapman, who was very keen to ask a question but who, due to a personal emergency, cannot be in the chamber this afternoon. I ask this question on her behalf. What work is on-going to ensure that, when all potential victims have been identified, they are kept up to date with the inquiries as they progress in order to ensure that they have all the answers that they deserve? How, in the meantime, can trust be rebuilt between the public and the health board?