Chamber and committees

The level of expenditure on consultants, as I said in my original answer, fell in 2022-23 and is at its second-lowest level since 2018. The wider category of expenditure that Rachael Hamilton is talking about includes measures such as the provision of the Scottish household survey and the Scottish health survey, both of which are crucial in determining information that informs Government as well as social policy development in our country. Crucially, they are used by academics. Other examples include the development of a case management system to help us deliver compensation to victims of sexual abuse via the redress scheme. I do not think that members of Parliament would object to the Government investing in such measures, which command all-party support.

I simply assure Rachael Hamilton of two things. First, the Government—indeed, any Government under my leadership—will always be careful about public money. That is why Ivan McKee, the Minister for Public Finance, has a mandate from me to challenge public expenditure at all times. Secondly, we will act to make sure that we maximise the resources that are available to members of the public to deliver public services. That is what people will get from a Swinney Government.

Let me assure Tess White that the Government is very focused on addressing one of the issues that contributes to the problem that she raises with me, which is the extent of delayed discharges in our hospital system. That essentially creates congestion in hospitals. It means that patients cannot be moved from A and E into other, more suitable hospital accommodation, and there is then congestion at A and E, which results in some of the long waits for ambulances that Tess White has raised with me. The Government is absolutely focused on reducing delayed discharge as a significant contribution to addressing that issue.

As I said in my first answer, I expect ministers to engage with a variety of stakeholders in events and gatherings around the country, whether those are cultural, societal, social or sporting events. That has always been the case in every Administration in the United Kingdom, and I would expect my ministers to do exactly that.

The issues that Mr Sarwar is concerned about—including the availability of care packages—are exactly the issues that I am concerned about. That is why I have spent so much time since I became First Minister trying to tackle the issue of delayed discharge and ensure that we have the resources in place to support the delivery of social care in our communities. I am also concerned about the impact of the changes to employers’ national insurance contributions in the United Kingdom Government’s budget, because they will increase the costs of the delivery of care by care providers.

I cite to Mr Sarwar the comments of Donald Macaskill, the chief executive of Scottish Care, who said:

“We are concerned that Scotland’s many care organisations will struggle to pay the extra payments and may in turn end up going out of business.”

None of us wants to see that. Therefore, we must ensure that we have in place a sustainable approach to investment in social care. The Government is doing that by improving pay rates and investing in social care, and it is a priority in the budget negotiations in which we are all involved.

I respectfully encourage and invite Mr Sarwar to work with the Scottish Government to ensure that the funding settlement from the United Kingdom Government is able to be deployed on 1 April to invest in social care, and I encourage the Labour Party to vote for the Scottish Government’s budget, which will make provision for that. Not doing so will mean that the Labour Party is turning its back on those in our country who depend on social care, which it has done once already with the employers’ national insurance contribution changes.

The Labour Party’s 2024 manifesto said that it was supportive of the creation of a national care service. If that is what support for creating a national care service looks like, I would hate to think what opposition to a national care service looks like.

Mr Sarwar raised the issue of employers’ national insurance contributions. I have explained it to him often enough, so Mr Sarwar knows that the UK Government should have increased income tax. If it had increased income tax, as we have done here—if it had taken that honest decision—it would have avoided putting businesses in the position of going out of business because of an increase in employers’ national insurance contributions. That will have an effect—[Interruption.]

I am not sure whether I misheard Anas Sarwar, but I think that he said that the national care service is opposed by care users. That is not the case; disabled people’s organisations, carers and service users press the Government to take forward the national care service. It is really important that we reflect that. When the Cabinet was in Ayr just last week, we heard directly from members of the public who are care users, and they encouraged us—indeed, pleaded with us—to implement the national care service.

I accept that there is a lot of opposition to the national care service from a variety of institutional stakeholders, and I recognise the issues within Parliament. That is why the Government is taking time to engage substantively on the national care service and to put in place arrangements to tackle the issues that Mr Sarwar and I agree on, which are the unacceptable variation of care in different parts of the country, as well as the postcode lottery that exists in the treatment and support of vulnerable people in our society.

We regularly engage with the UK Government at both ministerial and official level on that point. The Acting Minister for Climate Action, Alasdair Allan, recently met his UK counterpart to share outcomes from our Scottish Government energy consumers round table, which brought together a range of stakeholders from across the energy industry to discuss issues affecting Scottish consumers. We aim to hold that series of round tables regularly, and we will continue to feed back to the UK Government the need for further consumer protection against the key challenges that are faced, including smart meter connectivity.

That sounds like an entirely reasonable proposition. As Mr McArthur will appreciate from his extensive local knowledge, and particularly given the uniqueness of the islands’ situations, many of the propositions and services that are delivered through local engagement are more effective in being deployed on a more comprehensive basis. I am very happy to ask Dr Allan to raise that perspective in his dialogue with the UK Government on that question.

The Cabinet will next meet on Tuesday.

Mr Cole-Hamilton makes a number of reasonable and important points about the country’s dependence on family carers and the support that they provide. The Government has taken a range of steps during the devolution of social security benefits to Parliament that have enhanced the provision that is available for carers, in particular in enhancements to carers allowance. I am glad that we have done that, and we are committed to taking that forward in the forthcoming budget.

I know and appreciate that Mr Cole-Hamilton has put that proposal on support for carers into the discussions that we are having on the forthcoming budget. The Government will engage constructively on that point, and we look forward to further discussions with Mr Cole-Hamilton and his colleagues on that question.