Chamber and committees

You and I could go back and forth on that, minister, because I think that the feeling on the ground in local government is that Scottish Government decision making, and the choices that have been made, have also had a huge impact. I am thinking in particular of the underfunding of Scottish Government-led initiatives, some of which we have discussed this morning. Nevertheless, I am very conscious of the time allowed to the committee this morning. As I have said, we could have a further discussion on funding, but I think that we have both made our points and they are now on the record.

I know that Gillian Mackay has a supplementary on this theme, so I am willing to give her the last word.

That concludes our questions. Thank you, minister, for your contributions.

We will move on to discuss our final theme this morning: the pandemic and the cost of living crisis. What is the Scottish Government doing to ensure that those who are already vulnerable and who have been affected by health inequalities are not further disadvantaged during Covid recovery and the cost of living crisis?

The fifth item on our agenda is consideration of two negative instruments, which were laid on Thursday 16 June and came into force on the same day. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee considered the instruments at its meeting this morning. It decided to draw them to the attention of the Parliament on reporting ground (j) for failure to comply with laying requirements in section 28(2) of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010. However, the DPLRC is content with the explanation provided by the Scottish Government for failure to comply with the laying requirements.

The first instrument is the National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors) (Scotland) Amendment (No 2) Regulations 2022. It ensures that certain NHS services for any overseas visitor who requires diagnosis or treatment for monkeypox are provided without charge to that overseas visitor.

No motions to annul have been received in relation to the instrument.

As no member has any ?comments,?I propose that the committee does not make any?recommendations in relation to the?instrument.?Do members agree with that?

Members indicated agreement.

I am coming to that point. My colleague Jackie Baillie made the point that there is already ministerial direction on ring-fenced spending and that ministers are the final arbiter on decisions that are made by IJBs. IJBs are not just councils; they are also health boards and they have health board members.

Colleagues on the Labour benches have set out, time and again, how charges could be ended immediately. Indeed, we provided a costed budget in December, which allowed us to implement the recommendations in the Feeley review using consequentials. Today, because of ministers’ inaction and their unwillingness to use consequentials, we have set out how that can be done with the vast level of reserves that sit in health and social care partnerships.

For people who pay those care charges, the policy will be transformative, as it will lift a heavy burden from their shoulders. However, it seems that the SNP and the Scottish Greens are not willing to support such a measure, which would make a real and tangible difference to life for so many people. It is a case of them, once again, sticking their heads in the sand, despite the promise that the SNP made in its manifesto for the council elections last year that it would end the costs of non-residential care.

Even before that, the previous Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care promised, at the start of 2021, to work as quickly as was practicable to end all charges.

The Government has the money. It needs the political will and the bravery to do that.

The cabinet secretary will see Labour councils making a real difference on the ground in relation to the cost of living and non-residential care charges. We will not take any lectures from a cabinet secretary who is unwilling to act.

The cabinet secretary has spoken about the national care service, which is another opportunity to kick things into the long grass. I say to members who have talked about Scottish Labour’s position on the national care service that we have been consistently clear about what our tests for a national care service are. Now that the bill has been published, there are serious concerns not only among Scottish Labour, but among trade unions and councils. Indeed, Keir Greenaway of the GMB said that there is much detail on

“new executive boards of bureaucrats... but”

there is

“no mention of how care workers can improve their pay. It’s unclear how, if at all, care staff will benefit from these fag packet plans.”

That is the trade unions’ view: “fag packet plans” is how they describe the bill.

It is not just the SNP and the Greens who, with their amendment, are letting down Scots . Conservative members have failed to respond, or mention in their amendment, the cost of living crisis, which has been caused, in part, by the Conservative UK Government—a Government that is totally failing the economy and failing to tackle inflation, which is what has spurred this crisis on. It comes as no surprise to see the Scottish Conservatives pivot away from the real matter that is at hand, which is the need to take action straight away to end all non-residential social care charges. Instead, its amendment does nothing to address the pressures that people who are in receipt of social care are facing now.

Scottish Labour is putting ideas in place that will benefit people across Scotland, and we are putting those ideas into practice. We have heard that in the examples that were relayed about West Dunbartonshire. We are tackling the cost of living crisis head-on with a £5 million package, which is making a real difference, particularly in relation to non-residential care charges. I have yet to see the same ambition to tackle the cost of living crisis from members on the benches opposite me. Let us remind ourselves that the Scottish Government’s own report on adult social care recommended that all non-residential social care charges come to an end. When the First Minister announced the review, she said that

“it is time to be bold.”

I say to the Government: what you have before you from Scottish Labour is bold, and we will continue to be bold until the timid Government does the right thing.

In closing the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour, I reflect that the Parliament has again used Labour time to debate the ending of all non-residential care charges in Scotland. We have heard from colleagues across the chamber about what that would mean for the many people who rely on such support, but also for the unpaid carers who are at breaking point, both in terms of their physical and mental health and financially.

It is disappointing that the Government has not given clarity on timescales or meaningful plans about how it will remove those charges. It can do that now. The minister said that it will take legislation, but I would challenge that. Will he give a cast-iron guarantee that non-residential care charges will be ended before the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill is debated at stage 3?

I will be happy to give way to either the minister or the cabinet secretary if they can confirm what will come first. People who are in receipt of adult social care cannot wait for the Government to get its act together—nor should they have to. We are in the midst of the worst cost of living crisis in living memory, and many households are already panicking about the looming winter. We need to act now.

Unpaid carers have told me about the impacts of the cost of living crisis that are being felt already—for example, through energy bills for vital equipment skyrocketing. As Jackie Baillie mentioned, we have heard about one instance of a bill increasing to £4,000 per year. We must act with haste to make life a bit easier for those carers.

Of course, each time that we call on the Government to deliver on its own pledge, it makes excuses. It is someone else’s fault—as is outlined in its amendment. The last time that the minister and I had an exchange in a debate about social care, it was COSLA and IJBs that were the issue.

On that last point, it is correct to say that there are lots of aspirational policies that seek to alleviate such issues. In relation to devolution to local authorities, it seems to me that many of the six priorities that Professor Marmot outlined are what local councils do around, for example, education, employability and building communities. I wonder whether on-going and repeated cuts to local authority budgets have an impact. Professor Marmot, how did Coventry or Manchester deal with what was obviously a reducing picture? Is it your sense that those things will be hard to achieve unless local government is funded appropriately?

I thank the witnesses for their insights, which have been helpful.

I want to ask about progress. With regard to Professor Marmot’s work and, indeed, a lot of the things that the other witnesses have referred to, it strikes me that a lot of what we have heard is not new—it is not rocket science; it is about looking at what works in communities and investing in it. A lot of that work is done by local authority services or by the third sector. Across the piece, there has been a reduction in funding for those sorts of services. Obviously, we can argue about the politics of the source of that issue, but I simply want to get a sense of whether, despite that backdrop, progress has been made in Scotland in implementing many of these strategies. I will start with Professor Marmot.