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?

I, too, thank Paul Sweeney for securing the time in the chamber for this important annual debate. The great daffodil appeal, which is the most prominent awareness-raising appeal for Marie Curie, runs throughout March.

I take the opportunity, as others have, to thank the staff and volunteers of Marie Curie, who deliver services in 31 out of 32 local authority areas, including its two hospices in Edinburgh and Glasgow, and the at-home services for those who choose to die at home. Volunteers provide support through its companion service, tackling isolation and loneliness. Companions also support families after someone has died. That friendly, familiar support after the death of a loved one is an invaluable offering—I am sure it is valued by many families around the country.

Marie Curie also provides support for planning for end of life. I have previously said in other debates in the chamber that, as a country, we need to do more to support and encourage conversations about what a good death looks like for individuals. As the motion notes, for many people those will be about supporting their desire to die at home.

The way in which palliative care is delivered is already having to adapt to the demand for such support as well as to our ageing population. However, the motion notes that such demand will increase significantly by 2040, in that

“60,000 people will die with palliative care needs, which is 10,000 more per year than currently”.

Further pressure will undoubtedly come from the more complex nature of the health conditions that patients have as a result of their living longer. It is difficult, at the current point, to predict those for the future. The motion suggests that they will increase by 82 per cent, but that figure will undoubtedly vary across local authorities and will depend on socioeconomic factors. That should be kept under review, and services should be supported to adapt to deliver support to people who are in the greatest need.

The diversity of palliative care services and the range of conditions that they can support are vast, but I am not sure that the public, especially people who have never had contact with such services, have an understanding of that diversity. For example, people with conditions such as heart failure, which can be managed for long periods of time, can receive palliative care when it is needed. I believe that we should amplify the message about diversity in the sector wherever we can.

As I am the co-convener of the Parliament’s cross-party group on carers, it would be remiss of me not to mention the support that carers need when a loved one is receiving palliative care. Carers take on financial, emotional and physical burdens without a second thought, to support the people they love. As do many other organisations, Marie Curie provides valuable support to families. However, we must ensure that those families are meaningfully involved in end-of-life planning, they understand what will happen and what support is available and, crucially, they are allowed to express how they want to be supported along with their loved ones.

In the coming years more will need to be done to support the provision of palliative care, to ensure that everyone can receive the fantastic level of care that many members across the chamber have articulated during the debate. I thank Marie Curie’s staff, its volunteers and everyone who will donate to the great daffodil appeal this year.