Chamber and committees

I acknowledge that the Government agreed to do that in the previous session of Parliament. I hope that the minister addresses that in her summing up.

We must grasp the issues that are facing the current delivery of 1,140 hours, not least the financial pressures experienced by authorities, and ensure full roll-out before we can consider what is next.

In my time in the council, I met many private providers who felt that it was often difficult for them to enter into partnership with local authorities. We worked hard in East Renfrewshire to make those partnerships available, but there has to be more parity in the funding available to ensure that we have the right provision at the right time and in the right place.

As I said, there has perhaps been insufficient capital and revenue funding. Indeed, my inbox as a councillor has been full of messages from parents who have not always been able to get the flexibility that they need because the funding allocations have led to rigid options across a variety of locations. Often, parents cannot access the provision that they want in the community that they want or, indeed, where they live or work.

With an increasing population of children under five in East Renfrewshire, the council has had to make huge investment in the school estate in order to ensure sufficient places. That has meant building four new family centres and the extension of school buildings to accommodate nursery provision. Other authorities are in the same boat. East Lothian, which my colleague Martin Whitfield knows well, has experienced that. There is a sense that the Government has not always listened to the needs and circumstances of individual local authorities when allocating funding, which has resulted in significant shortfalls.

That is even before we consider the impact of the provision of meals in early learning and childcare settings. As Martin Whitfield alluded to, the forthcoming expansion of free school meals in primary schools will, yet again, have an impact on the space that will be required in the school estate. It is clear that there is something of a lack of joined-up thinking when it comes to what the Government expects local authorities to deliver and when. I hope that the minister reflects on that as part of the on-going review that will be undertaken to determine funding methodologies beyond 2022. Perhaps she may say something about that in her summing up.

In my remaining time, I highlight one further issue that has not been tackled in a joined-up way in the process of expansion, although it was referred to by Meghan Gallacher, Fulton MacGregor and Willie Rennie. The Give Them Time campaign contacted me while I was education convener in East Renfrewshire, asking for funded deferrals for all eligible children. It is clear that there must be a national approach to avoid a postcode lottery, and that councils must be funded to deliver.

I draw attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests, which shows that I am a serving councillor in East Renfrewshire Council and a member and former employee of Enable Scotland.

Thank you for presenting your statement of reasons. I serve as convener of the cross-party group on learning disability, where the previous iteration of the bill, under Johann Lamont, and the current version have been discussed at length. Many of the stories that colleagues have alluded to about the lived experience and the struggle and battle around transitions have been aired thoroughly in the cross-party group. Similarly to Fulton MacGregor and other members, constituents have been keen to get in touch with me to share their lived experience. Therefore, there is a compelling argument that we have done a lot of talking about the proposal and that we are perhaps now coming to the point where we need to act.

Your statement of reasons refers to the 91 responses to the previous consultation, which were broadly supportive of the bill. It is fair to say that, as I referred to, other people have fed in through correspondence and the CPG. Are you content that the bill has been shaped by those responses and experiences? In essence, we all want to know that the bill has been influenced strongly by that consultation and that people have been listened to in the process.

Public confidence in NHS charities is vital and we must learn the lessons of what happened at NHS Tayside. I recognise that the review by Julie Hutchison is a key part of that.

I am sure that we were all inspired in the first lockdown by the fundraising efforts of Captain Sir Tom Moore. NHS Scotland boards received a share of £4.4 million of that fundraising money, which shows the importance of endowment funds. Although the public might not know much about them, they have likely supported them and would want to see the money well spent.

I welcome the cabinet secretary’s intention to accept the recommendation to create independent boards of trustees to governance charities. Does he agree that those boards must be more representative of patients and family carers? What steps will he take to ensure that boards are representative of the communities that they serve?

Last week, one of my constituents, Ms Cooper from Bishopbriggs, went to get her Covid-19 booster vaccination. She arrived on time for her appointment but the vaccination centre had no available disabled parking, no managed queuing and no seating for waiting patients. Ms Cooper, who is 83, has dementia, diabetes and reduced mobility but she was made to wait for an hour and a half outside in the cold and rain. Ms Cooper’s daughter has told me that her mother is afraid to go for any future vaccination. Ms Cooper is not alone. My inbox and the inboxes of colleagues are full of similar cases.

Forcing the elderly to wait in such conditions is turning people off getting their vaccination at a time when it is needed more than ever. What is the First Minster doing to ensure that our elderly and most vulnerable citizens are vaccinated quickly and safely and that nobody’s mother or father has to wait outside for hours in inclement weather? She will, I am sure, agree that that is unacceptable.

Analysis of the financial memorandum so far suggests that there are known unknowns. We do not have clarity on how many women might come forward to use the scheme, so the finances are somewhat estimated at this stage. I am keen to understand what contingencies there are in the financial memorandum to account for any unanticipated increase in the number of women coming forward.

I would like to begin by restating what everyone in the chamber has said already, which is thank you. Thank you to all those who have contributed to the bill’s progress, and to all organisations that gave evidence and briefings that contributed to the passage of the bill. Thank you also to carers, who do so much and too often receive too little support and not enough recognition. We have heard from colleagues across the chamber just how challenging the past 18 months has been for carers—indeed, they have been the most challenging times that unpaid carers have ever faced.

Services continue to be squeezed, and enough respite care is still not available. Colleagues have alluded to that very powerfully today, including when Mark Griffin and Willie Rennie spoke about the experiences of people who are caring for loved ones. In the past few weeks, we have seen councils across the Lothians and in Glasgow, for example, cutting back on care-at-home provision and asking unpaid carers yet again to do more. All that is before we even get to the worst of winter.

At stage 1, I said that it is important that we hear the voices of carers in the legislation and respond to what they ask of us. That is the least that we can do, and those of us on the Scottish Labour benches have reiterated that through our amendments. Although there has been a very constrained timetable for the bill, we have sought to hear what carers have told us and to act on it.

The ability to increase the supplement, albeit for a limited number of months, is of course welcome. As colleagues have said, we have supported the bill and will support it today, because we believe that putting extra money into the pockets of carers in time for Christmas is a vital step in supporting them at a very demanding time of year and in the midst of a pandemic that is still very much impacting people’s lives.

However, the bill only goes so far and we must do more. That is what my colleague Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendments and Jeremy Balfour’s amendments sought to do. The bill provides a one-off increase in carers allowance, and it also gives the power to increase future payments of the supplement but, as we have heard, that is not guaranteed. The bill should not be a missed opportunity to ensure that there is a guaranteed bridge of uplift for carers so that they have more financial security until the advent of carers assistance, but I fear that it will be.

The Government had the opportunity to change the calculation, to use universal credit and fix that to the rate prior to the Tories’ shameful cut. That would have meant that eligible carers would be entitled to a higher supplement that was £480 more than the current supplement level, but the Government refused to take that amendment on board. I ask what that says to carers in Scotland. I was disappointed not to hear Maggie Chapman speak about that amendment, which she had pursued in the committee.

The Government could also have ensured that the increased supplement is paid every six months until carers assistance is rolled out. Currently, the bill guarantees only one payment of the increased supplement in December 2021, as we have heard. Mark Griffin talked about what we would hope to see as a long-term strategy and solution to providing a meaningful uplift for carers in carers allowance.

At stage 1, the minister suggested that the Government intends

“to introduce Scottish carers assistance for new applications long before 2025.”—[Official Report, 23 September 2021; c 93.]

Those were his words. Therefore, it would be helpful if, in his concluding remarks, he would clarify what is meant by that. When will carers have extra money in their pockets before 2025, and how long before 2025 will that be?

The convener of the committee, who is in his place now, said in his speech and, I think, in remarks to the Daily Record, that the additional payments from the supplement will ensure that we provide greater recognition to the people who help to look after a loved one. We have seen today that there is a consensus on that in the chamber, but we have to ask ourselves whether that recognition ceases at the end of December.

Scottish Labour will support the bill to make more support available to stretched carers, but it is a sticking plaster to cover a gaping wound, and carers and carer organisations have been clear that it is not sufficient to lift carers out of poverty. We can do more. We must do more. The Scottish Government must hear the voices of carers, who for too long have felt like an afterthought.

Good morning, cabinet secretary. In your opening remarks, you touched on the conversation that you will have with your counterpart tomorrow, but what dialogue has been going on so far and what response have you had from the UK Government on the issues that you have raised directly with it, as highlighted in your statement?

What should the memorandum of understanding that the Scottish Government has requested include, and how broad and wide-ranging should it be?