Chamber and committees

The problem with the point that Mr O’Kane puts to me is that we have not yet seen that consequential funding. The problem that the Government has to wrestle with is that we have to look at the implications of all the financial decisions that are taken by the United Kingdom Government. What we are having to wrestle with in this debate is a direct cut to our budget of about £150 million, which affects the universality of the winter fuel heating payment. That is what we are wrestling with today.

It is important for us to take forward the social tariff propositions that I have set out. Following a ministerial round-table, we secured the agreement of energy suppliers to take part in a working group that is aimed at co-designing a social tariff. There is considerable work still to be done, but that group represents a real and necessary step forward.

Unfortunately, the powers to implement a social tariff are reserved to the United Kingdom Government. We repeatedly called on the previous UK Government to introduce a social tariff as a means of targeting support to those who need it most. Those calls went unheeded prior to the election. If we are to enjoy a more constructive discussion with the current UK Government, with the policy choices and aspirations of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government being addressed in a serious, substantial and respectful way, it should be possible for us to make progress on delivering that crucial policy. We are committed to working closely with the UK Government, as well as with Ofgem, suppliers and consumer organisations, to advocate for the delivery of a social tariff across Great Britain. Here in Scotland, we will continue to tackle fuel poverty and support people during the on-going cost of living crisis, using the powers that are available to us.

If the Parliament had more powers, we would be able to do more. If the UK Government continues to take decisions such as means testing the winter fuel payment and does not heed calls for badly needed reform of the energy market, I have no doubt that more and more people will ask themselves why it is that a country as energy rich as Scotland should tolerate such decisions being imposed on us by successive Westminster Governments.

I recognise the restrictive fiscal environment in which the UK Government, my Government and local government across the UK are operating. The current budgetary challenges are the most severe that we have ever faced in the history of the Parliament, but it is a mistake to think that austerity and the restriction of entitlements is the solution to the problem. It is a mistake to think that benefits, action to tackle poverty and other supports for our most vulnerable are costs to be curtailed. Rather, it is the case that those measures are investments in our people, our communities and our nation’s future.

Will Anas Sarwar take an intervention?

Will Anas Sarwar take an intervention?

I agree fundamentally with the point that Carol Mochan put to me. The Government is of course pursuing a number of measures under consultation in relation to alcohol marketing, so as to achieve the objective that she understandably put to me. I reassure her that it is part of the Government’s programme to put in place measures that avoid children having exposure to alcohol in their childhood and enable us to achieve more positive outcomes for young people.

Before I answer the substance of Russell Findlay’s question, I welcome him to his post as leader of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party. I look forward to our exchanges, which will take their course over the coming weeks, months and years.

The national care service is a product of consultation and dialogue with members of the public. It follows the Feeley review of adult social care, which concluded that across the country there was such variation in the quality and effectiveness of social care that there was an argument, and a necessity, for a national care service to ensure that, wherever in the country an individual is in the social care service, they are able to receive the highest-quality support. That is the foundation of the national care service and it is on that basis that the Government will pursue the proposition that have we put to Parliament.

As Mr Sarwar will know, there has been a significant increase in demand on our health and care services as a consequence of the Covid pandemic. That is the reality of what we are wrestling with.

In addressing that reality, the Government has delivered on our commitment in the programme for government to increase social care spending by 25 per cent over this session of Parliament—two years ahead of our original target. We have put in those extra resources because we were prepared to take the hard decision on tax in order to increase public investment and public expenditure.

I do not in any way diminish or dismiss the significance of the problem of delayed discharge. I have recounted and put on the record the disparity in the performance of health and social care partnerships around the country, which is a source of great concern to me.

The Government has invested in the system to ensure that we can support it and deliver on expectations. However, we face higher demand as a consequence of Covid.

I am interested in all that Mr Sarwar has said today. Unless I misheard him, I do not think that he spoke at any stage about service users. They are the people who want a national care service, because they are deeply concerned by the issues that we are wrestling with.

The Government will engage constructively with all interested parties about the establishment of a national care service, because we want to improve outcomes for members of the public. We are committed to doing exactly that. We will engage constructively with the Labour Party, and anyone else, on their ideas for establishing such a service. However, members must be aware that when they come here to demand investment in our public services, they have to be prepared to support the means to make that happen. That does not happen if they oppose what we are doing on tax. Neither does it happen if members of Parliament say that there will be no austerity, as Mr Sarwar told me during the election campaign, but then deliver austerity when they are in power in the United Kingdom Government. That does not add up. It will not meet the needs of patients in our country, and it will not deliver better outcomes for our people.

I share the deep concern that Patrick Harvie has expressed to Parliament about the situation in the middle east. The calls that my predecessor and I have made for a ceasefire in Gaza—which we have done for some considerable time, dating back to late October last year—have highlighted the danger of escalation of the conflict, which is exactly what is now happening. If there had been intervention to deliver a ceasefire a long time ago, we could have avoided being on the very dangerous course that we are now on.

I reiterate my call for there to be an immediate ceasefire and for all parties of good will to exercise their influence and responsibility to ensure that that is brought about and that there is de-escalation of the conflict in the middle east. All of this, of course, goes back to the atrocities that were committed by Hamas in early October 2023. All hostages should be returned, a ceasefire should be applied to resolve the issues, and a two-state solution should be developed to ensure that Palestinians can live in safety in their own sovereign, independent nation.

Mr Harvie raises with me issues of devolved responsibility. He and I had an exchange about that on 30 May 2024. This morning, I reread that exchange to satisfy myself that all steps that we can take within our legal responsibility are being taken, to ensure that the concerns that Mr Harvie puts to me are properly pursued.

The recent statistics are a stark reminder of the challenge that our nation faces in tackling alcohol harm. The increase in minimum unit pricing of alcohol to 65p per unit this week is an example of concrete action taken by this Government to prevent alcohol harm.

Research has estimated that our policy has saved hundreds of lives and has likely averted hundreds of alcohol-attributable hospital admissions, compared with what would have happened without minimum unit pricing in place.

To support people who are already drinking at hazardous and harmful levels, the Scottish Government provided a sustained record investment of £112 million to alcohol and drug partnerships this year.

I understand the significance of the issue that Sarah Boyack puts to me. The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care has been actively engaged on the issue, and there will be a briefing on it to members of Parliament tomorrow.

We are in discussion with NHS Lothian about the arrangements to ensure continuity of service to individuals who will be affected by the closure because of the structural issues that we have to confront. The health secretary will keep members of Parliament updated about the steps that are being taken to ensure that the concerns that Sarah Boyack puts to me are properly and fully addressed.