Chamber and committees

I, too, thank Stuart McMillan for bringing this important members’ business debate to the chamber and, more importantly, for all his work in the Parliament campaigning on eye health issues. It is important that we recognise that as well.

National eye health week is an excellent opportunity to highlight the importance of good eye health. I pay tribute to Sight Scotland and the RNIB, as other members have, for their useful briefings ahead of the debate. Both charities do exceptional work in supporting blind and partially sighted people across Scotland.

In today’s Edinburgh Evening News, Edinburgh old-age pensioner Charlie Burns, who is 83, and his daughter Gail Burns, praise Sight Scotland for its new national support line. Charlie has been diagnosed with macular degeneration, which is the most common cause of sight loss. Gail got in touch with Sight Scotland to ask what support would be available to both Charlie and herself. She said:

“It would have made a huge difference to have had support at an earlier stage after Dad’s diagnosis.”

The experience of Charlie and Gail reinforces Sight Scotland’s recent findings. It found that 83 per cent of participants said that it was important to provide more support to family members and carers, and 87 per cent said that support with the emotional impact of sight loss was important.

We face huge challenges in preventing sight loss across Scotland. There are currently 178,000 people in Scotland with sight loss, and that number is expected to double over the next 20 years. The pandemic has clearly had a negative impact on eye health, with fewer eye checks being carried out over the past year and a half. In my own region of Edinburgh and the Lothians, patients are experiencing extremely long waits for ophthalmology services. All of that combined presents a number of concerns, which I hope the debate will bring to ministers’ attention.

I noticed ahead of the debate that there has been a significant call to ministers by the sector to consider a proper long-term funding settlement. Optometry Scotland has asked for

“a minimum budget increase of 3% annually in real terms on fees.”

It also called on the Scottish Government to agree to an annual process for reviewing and negotiating eye-care examination fees. I hope that, in closing the debate, the minister can touch on how we can ensure that services recover post pandemic and that as many people as possible are able to access eye-health services across Scotland.

On a separate note, at the end of the previous session, Scottish National Party ministers announced that they were withdrawing funding for a replacement for the Princess Alexandra eye pavilion. Throughout the past year, I and other colleagues—I see that Sarah Boyack is in the chamber—have campaigned to ensure a U-turn from ministers on that.

This is an important opportunity to highlight the need in Edinburgh and the Lothians for information on when that hospital replacement—a long-term proposal—will take place. I would appreciate it if ministers could outline a timetable or timescale for that replacement hospital. Have ministers specifically considered the need for maintenance at the old eye pavilion in the capital? It is no longer fit for purpose—there are already significant challenges, such as old lifts that are often out of use.

I put on record, as others have already done, my huge thanks to opticians and healthcare professionals across Scotland, who continued to provide eye-health checks during the pandemic. Most importantly, I fully support the call by Stuart McMillan, Optometry Scotland and RNIB Scotland to encourage people who have not had an examination over the past two years to return to practices to get their eye health checked.

Good morning. I have a two-pronged question. First, how has the integration of health and social care worked or not worked? Secondly, concerns have been expressed to the committee about the proposed national care service. What impact will the proposals have on the topic that we are talking about—empowering our local councils and our democracies? I will start with Angus Hardie. If other witnesses who want to speak put an R in the chat box, I hope that we can bring them in.

I want to return to points that the convener has already raised about our correspondence and evidence session with Councillor Margaret Davidson. She told the committee that there was a good initial conversation between the council and Boundaries Scotland, but much of what the council relayed to the commission during the early conversations was not taken on board when the proposals were drawn up. We have already heard concerns with regard to Sutherland, Wester Ross and the Loch Ness communities. How were those concerns taken on board? What community engagement took place? How do you respond to the specific concerns that Highland Council expressed?

You touched on your work during the pandemic, which has impacted every organisation. We are still feeling the impacts today—indeed, you are having to give evidence remotely. Has your work been constrained by time, given the fact that the Government has asked for proposals to be introduced before next year’s council elections? Has the pandemic impacted on your ability to really find out the views of communities? Have communities really been engaged in the work over the period?

With the council elections rapidly approaching, what can be done to improve council demographics? We want to encourage more women, younger people and people from ethnic minorities to put themselves forward and get involved in local government. One of the issues that people have raised with us is around remuneration for councillors. Given your experience, what do you think would encourage more people to consider putting themselves forward?

I will start with Kim, because I know that you have commented previously on the matter.

Thank you, convener. I thank the panel for joining us today.

To save time, I will put two questions together. First, we know that undertaking a caring role is a key contributing factor that has been linked to poverty, and we know that during the pandemic, more than 390,000 more Scots have become carers. It is now estimated that 45,000 young people are unpaid carers. What are the panel’s views on priorities for the 2022-23 budget with regard to potential reforms to the young carer grant and young carers qualifying for carers allowance supplement? Secondly, what do you think should be done to improve benefit uptake?

That is very helpful. Given that we have seen the cost double for the establishment of Social Security Scotland, has that work on case transfers been significantly underresourced?

I reiterate your point about intergovernmental links, which must be improved. You mentioned records that are on paper. What percentage of records that are now within Social Security Scotland are in paper form?

From looking at the original estimates, the Social Security Scotland staff requirement has doubled from the original estimate of 1,900 to more than 3,500, so what you have just said does not stack up against what has actually happened.

As the cabinet secretary did at the start of her speech, I begin by saying that I hope that we can, where possible, find agreement and consensus on a number of issues during this session of Parliament, so that we can address poverty and inequality. At the election, there was genuine cross-party commitment to working to tackle child poverty and, as the motion suggests, to make that a national mission. Indeed, all the parties that have been elected to Parliament agreed to double the child payment and to work to meet the target to reduce child poverty.

Scottish Conservatives supported the introduction of the Scottish child payment and have continued to support and press for reforms. That is why my amendment calls on Parliament to support doubling of the Scottish child payment within the next financial year—something that all the charities and stakeholders that have provided useful briefings for the debate have called on MSPs to support.

The negative impact that the pandemic has had on Scotland’s children and young people is only just starting to be fully being understood, but for the most vulnerable children and young people in our society, we know that the impact has been significant. We all agree that realising the potential of every child and young person in Scotland must be a key focus of Parliament and the SNP-Green coalition Scottish Government. We must all be prepared to work hard to meet the ambitious targets that are set out in the Child Poverty (Scotland) Act. 2017.