Chamber and committees

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.

I thank Christine Grahame for bringing the debate to the chamber. From what we have heard, I am in no doubt that the play “Men Don’t Talk”, by Clare Prenton, goes a long way towards dispelling the myths that persist in our society that men don’t talk, and the stigma that persists around how men deal with their feelings. I congratulate Clare Prenton on that important piece of work. The fact that she went into a community and worked hand in hand with a men’s shed to inform the play can only mean that it gives a piercing insight into the worries and angst of so many men, even if that sometimes extends to discussing who is next to do the dreaded trip to the shops.

I agree with Christine Grahame that projects such as “Men Don’t Talk” are an excellent example of community collaboration and play an important role in raising awareness in society among those who may be less comfortable in engaging with conventional support. If the performance travels further north at some point in time, I think that we would all be delighted to attend a showing. Perhaps we could even do so in the Parliament in the future.

In my community, we are fortunate enough to have access to our own men’s shed just down the road in Barrhead. It is a community that the minister knows well—indeed, he and I have visited that excellent facility. We have not yet been encouraged by the members to take up woodwork, but that may well happen in the future—although I am not entirely confident about my abilities in that regard.

The community men’s shed in Barrhead does so much more than provide a space for crafting and woodwork. It provides a lifeline to many in our community, and enables older people—both men and women—to come together and share a space with one another. The Barrhead men’s shed does amazing work, and we can all learn so much from its members’ example of kindness and respect to all. Every time that I have visited, I have felt that warmth and kindness, and the real buzz that exists around the place with people coming together.

I will not, if that is okay, so as to keep on the right side of the Presiding Officer.

I will share with members a few quotes that have come directly from the members of the shed in Barrhead. I think that these quotes typify what the shed means to them. One person said:

“It may just be a shed to you, but to me—it’s my Sanctuary.”

Another said:

“The men’s shed has been my life saver since my wife died.”

From those quotes, it is clear to me that we need to do as much as we can to provide support for these organisations, which, for some people, are indeed a lifeline.

As other members have said, it is not rocket science. It is a model that has, in some ways, always been around, but the difference that it makes is huge. As Christine Grahame said, we need to think about the preventative spend aspect, particularly with regard to the savings to the health budget.

We have heard from other members about the issues of funding and the sustainability of men’s sheds. Sustainability of funding is crucial, and I know that it worries many people who are active in the men’s shed movement. We have heard about some of the national issues that the Scottish Men’s Sheds Association is experiencing, and I hope that the minister will pick up on those in his concluding remarks.

There are also issues at a local level in relation to support and the funding for leasing the buildings that men’s sheds occupy, with councils sometimes dragging their heels when it comes to making decisions on future support. We need to explore further the asset transfer framework in the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015. The men’s shed in Barrhead has raised issues about the validation certificate and the length of time that it can take to have that confirmed, the uncertainty that it creates when it comes to applying to funders, and the group’s desire to have a sense of control over the buildings that it occupies. I am conscious of time, so I hope that the minister will be able to respond to that issue, or perhaps take it offline with me.

Next year, the Scottish men’s shed movement will celebrate the 10th year since the first ever men’s shed opened in 2013. Since then, from Barrhead to Ullapool, the movement has gone from strength to strength, and that should be celebrated. I look forward to us all coming together in the Parliament next year, with perhaps even more guests from men’s sheds from across the country, to celebrate that milestone.

I do not know whether I have time.

If the minister will forgive me, I am not keen to facilitate a conversation between two members in my summing up on behalf of the committee. I am sure that they might want to take up the issue offline.

Problems persist in CAMHS, as Dr Gulhane and Paul Sweeney both showed when referring to cases to do with a constituent. We need to look in more detail at what happens when people experience a mental health crisis. People need to be taken seriously, and the service that they are given needs to get the heart of the issue and seek to support them in a holistic manner.

I am conscious of the time, Presiding Officer, so I conclude by thanking everyone who has contributed to this afternoon’s debate and by echoing the convener’s earlier words of gratitude for all the contributions that we received during the inquiry.

As we have heard today and throughout the inquiry, although there are many challenges, there are also lots of opportunities and inspiring examples of good practice we can draw on to improve health and wellbeing outcomes for children and young people across Scotland.

I look forward to the Government’s formal response to the committee’s inquiry report and hearing how ministers intend to take forward our key findings and recommendations. I believe that, across all parties, we share a common goal to improve the health and wellbeing of all children and young people. I hope that the debate has been a useful springboard for us on the way to achieving that.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to close this important debate on behalf of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee. As we have heard this afternoon, the inquiry has highlighted a number of key challenges and opportunities that we face, as Scotland seeks to improve the health and wellbeing of all its children and young people.

As the convener stated in her opening speech, we all want children and young people to be able to live happy and healthy lives. I think that that was echoed by Alex Cole-Hamilton when he said that the topic should keep us all up at night. We can all agree on that.

It falls to me in closing to try to build some consensus. I think that the debate has found a degree of consensus at points, but it has been challenging in other areas as we exchange ideas and views. However, it is clear to me that everyone who has contributed to the debate wants to see a better future for children in Scotland.

During our inquiry, we asked witnesses where they thought that policy actions should be focused as a first priority to improve health and wellbeing outcomes for children and young people. Our witnesses were unanimous in their response: tackling poverty needs to be the overriding priority. As other members of the committee have done, I take the opportunity to thank our witnesses and all those who gave evidence to our committee.

That need for a primary focus on tackling poverty has been reflected in much of the debate this afternoon. We must acknowledge the evidence that we received, and the minister’s evidence to the inquiry, which illustrates what the Scottish Government is doing to tackle poverty in order to improve the health and wellbeing outcomes of children and young people. As many argued during the debate, we should not be under any illusions that there are not challenges with regard to the policies that are being delivered.