Good morning, minister and witnesses. Could you expand a wee bit further on where the remit might go. Social care is obviously a very hot topic that is of significant interest to the committee. Dame Sue Bruce’s on-going work is on social care and its regulation. Have you factored that view into your planning? Given all that is going on in social care, might the PSC have a regulatory role in that context?

We would certainly recognise that from the evidence that we have heard.

To what extent do you feel that the commissioner, sitting where it does, will have the right powers? People want to see a resolution, which will very often involve some end point of action. Are there enough powers in relation to exerting pressure on the Government, pushing for changes to policy in the NHS or the important learning that has to happen where there have been issues?

I will push a little further on that.

Everybody wants to work in a collegiate fashion and ensure that there is encouragement in relation to change and learning lessons. However, that does not always happen; for example, in large organisations, it can often be difficult to get to that end point of a change in process or taking the learning on board. Although I know that “enforce” is not always a word that we like to use, because we want to see that collegiate approach, is there enough ability to enforce? In social care, for example, we would recognise enforcement as happening in the care home sector or other such places. Is there enough power, or any power, to enforce, if that is required?

We are interested in the appointment process and what alternatives were considered. In evidence from the English commissioner, we heard that the role is a department of Government, which, it was thought, allowed it not to be overlooked. However, the converse of that, with regard to the bill, is the importance of the independence of the role. What is your rationale for choosing that direction?

There is so much to get into with all of these issues. I am particularly interested in the socioeconomic factors that affect, or create barriers for, many women and girls in sport. Do you see that when people have to access materials or kit? Sport is often played in a very particular way that is geared towards men. Many aspects of life are male-centric and dealt with through a patriarchal structure. Does that add cost barriers to access for some sports?

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its target to recruit 800 additional general practitioners by the end of 2027. (S6O-01988)

Audit Scotland has found that the Scottish Government will fail to meet its own target for increased GP numbers, which is indicative of its failure in workforce planning over many years. However, it is not just a recruitment issue. There is also a significant issue with capacity in GP surgeries. Surgeries are bursting at the seams, and the British Medical Association has found that 81 per cent of practices currently exceed capacity.

In the village of Neilston, which I represent, I spoke with GP partners of the Neilston medical centre, who told me that they are struggling to find the physical space to meet demand. They applied to the Scottish Government for loans to increase space, but the application was rejected. If the practice cannot expand, it might be forced to close its books. Why is the Government not giving GP surgeries the support that they need to expand the provision of general practice in their communities?

I, too, thank Roz McCall for bringing this important debate to the chamber and for speaking so powerfully and personally about her commitment to these issues. I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak on behalf of Scottish Labour, and I am also pleased to do so as the chair of the newly established cross-party group on care leavers, which was set up in the current session of Parliament.

Adoption UK has produced “The Adoption Barometer”, to which the motion refers, which is a highly useful resource that provides illuminating insights into the experience of families with adopted children in Scotland. It is encouraging that, in most areas, Scotland is performing comparatively well on the levels of education support that are provided for families with adopted children. As we have heard, however, experience of the support that is offered is often patchy and not consistent. Doing comparatively better cannot be the limit of our ambition for these young people.

Although the situation is better in Scotland than in the rest of the United Kingdom, only half of adoptive parents believe that teachers have a good understanding of the needs of care-experienced children. Let us be honest—that is simply not good enough.

That point was emphasised clearly in “The Promise” report, which highlighted the importance of teachers and school staff being appropriately trained to empower them to be fully aware of the challenges faced by care-experienced young people, and to equip them with skills to encourage those young people to support themselves and become more resilient—indeed, to reach the absolute limits of their potential.

Already in the debate today, and more broadly, we are hearing about the Promise and looking again at what was committed to in it and how we are delivering in those areas.

More broadly, it is critically important that the Government gets the Promise right and continues to deliver on that commitment, because, sadly, the reality for too many care-experienced young people and children is that much of their life has been shaped by broken promises—by adults who made commitments to them to improve their lives in one way or another and then failed to deliver.

As we have heard, the First Minister will be remembered in years to come for making those commitments to young people in the Promise. It is for all of us to commend her for focusing on care-experienced people, and particularly children and young people, and bringing the subject into the light of our national discourse and debate in a way that had perhaps not happened previously.

However, the First Minister’s resignation, which comes three years after the publication of the care review, provides an opportunity for us to pause, take breath and assess the effectiveness of the current approach and the impact of the Promise. There are some issues around accountability, and I know that concerns are being shared by third-sector organisations that work in this space.

An issue that has been raised with me is who in the Government will be accountable for delivery of the Promise, given the outgoing First Minister’s very personal commitment? Will it be the Minister for Children and Young People or the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, or will it be the equal responsibility of everyone in the Cabinet and all ministers? I think that we all want to see it as everyone’s responsibility but, very often, when something becomes the responsibility of everyone, it can quickly become the responsibility of no one.

I understand the rationale for having an organisation that is distinct from Government and seeks to be accountable to the people of Scotland for delivery of the Promise. That is important and admirable. However, we need to look at how we can have more parliamentary oversight of delivery of the Promise. Perhaps that could be achieved if we had specific ministerial responsibility or specific committee responsibility in this Parliament. We should consider all those things to ensure that all of us in this place hold the Government’s feet to the fire and indeed hold our own feet to the fire in relation to what we are trying to do for care-experienced young people in particular.

It is imperative that we do not fail care-experienced children and young people. As parliamentarians, we all have a responsibility to ensure that their voices and the voices of those who care for them are present in our debates and in every decision that we make in the chamber. Let us work together to ensure that our ambition matches the rhetoric and that it transforms into the meaningful change that care-experienced children and young people so richly deserve.

I know that SNP back benchers will be comparing the performances of their respective candidates last night.

Clearly, there is no unity in the Government on the way forward with the bill. In a matter of weeks, we have shifted from the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care and other senior ministers defending the bill to the hilt to the cabinet secretary now admitting that the bill, in its current form, needs to be paused and overhauled.

The Government’s motion suggests that the timetable for completion of stage 1 should be moved to June, but the Government has failed to explain why June is the most suitable time. Is it because it is politically expedient for the Government to move stage 1 until after the SNP leadership election, once the candidates have finished ripping one another to shreds and the Government has cobbled together a common position?

Presiding Officer,

“How much longer do people who need adult social care need to wait until we’ve got a system that isn’t being called into disrepute by the trade unions, local government and four parliamentary committees?”

Those are not my words; they are the words of Kate Forbes from last night’s debate, when she was eviscerating Humza Yousaf’s record as Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care. It appears that she and I agree on something, because she is right.

If the Government is serious about re-engaging with stakeholders, bringing people back around the table and building confidence in its national care service proposals, the stage 1 process cannot be moved down the tracks to a more suitable time for the SNP with no action in between to re-engage those stakeholders. It must be paused until at least the later part of the year to give sufficient time for the bill to be redrafted and brought back to the Parliament by a new health secretary for scrutiny. Indeed, that is exactly the position that the current health secretary is advocating since his Damascene conversion to supporting a pause to the bill.

How can the bill proceed on a June timetable when the Government is in such a state of disarray? Last night, it was made abundantly clear for all the public to see that Humza Yousaf’s own Cabinet colleagues do not have faith in his ability to serve as health secretary. Kate Forbes said the quiet part out loud when she less than discreetly admitted that she would sack him as health secretary if she became First Minister.

We need a proper pause to the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill to allow an opportunity for stakeholders to get back round the table and to make it right. Moving stage 1 until June does not allow sufficient time for that vital work to be undertaken. In the context of the Government being in a state of total disarray with Cabinet colleagues publicly arguing and contradicting one another, we need a proper pause until at least November to ensure that we have a proposal for a national care service that is fit for purpose and has the confidence of key stakeholders. That is what we, on the Labour benches, have argued for consistently. It is time that the Government got a grip and got on with redrafting the bill.

I move amendment S6M-08151.1, to leave out “30 June 2023” and insert:

“1 November 2023”.

This week, we have heard much about the proposed National Care Service (Scotland) Bill, not in the chamber but in the newspapers and, of course, on our televisions, including during last night’s unedifying—I think that that is putting it mildly—SNP leadership debate.

Indeed, positions on the bill have been shifting more quickly than the bureau and the Parliament can keep up with. Last night, the national care service was discussed—sorry, rammied over—by the candidates. It has been clear since the start of the leadership campaign that all the candidates are now articulating different forms of a pause to the bill. [Interruption.] I am pleased that the SNP leadership candidates have now accepted what Scottish Labour, trade unions, professional bodies and local government have been arguing for months, but it is becoming—