Chamber and committees

Will the minister take an intervention on that point?

In closing this short but hugely important debate on behalf of Scottish Labour, I thank everyone who has taken part and those who are listening, including Campbell Duke and Natasha Hamilton, who are in the Parliament building with other members of the Care Home Relatives Scotland group. Natasha’s petition is 97 signatures short of 100,000, so I ask those who have plugged it but have not signed it yet to please do so and to share it on social media.

I will be clear: the debate is not about the principles of Anne’s law, nor is it about the case for Anne’s law. It is about the when of Anne’s law, and what we have not heard from the minister is a date. Evelyn Tweed thanked the minister for all his hard work, but we have been here before. I will come on to speak about the debate that we had back in 2020, when we all agreed the principle of Anne’s law.

Today is about delivering on a promise to give effect to Anne’s law. We heard about the SNP manifesto, but this is not about one manifesto. Sue Webber and others are correct that Anne’s law has cross-party support—we are all on the same page.

I thank the former health secretary, Jeane Freeman, who was very accessible and approachable and who had regular meetings with colleagues from across the parties. In the debate in 2020, she recognised the unintended consequences of the lockdowns and she talked about the importance of touch. On the same day, she also gave evidence to the COVID-19 Committee. That gave people hope that things would change and that we were going to use the tools that Jackie Baillie and others have talked about, such as the use of PPE, vaccines and testing. We have all those tools, but if the minister were to look at his own figures on the Scottish Government website, he would see that we are going backwards. More care homes have put in place restrictions. This week, a higher number of care homes than last week are allowing only essential and outdoor visits. Has the minister seen the Scottish weather? We need to look at that issue.

We cannot be complacent. We are hearing loud and clear from our constituents and from the Care Home Relatives Scotland group that people living in care homes are being treated differently from the rest of society.

Jennifer Dick’s mum lives in a care home in Edinburgh. The care home put in additional restrictions from 21 February, which have been extended to 15 March. When Jennifer asked if she could take her mum, who had tested negative for Covid, on a short drive, or even back to her house for a visit, the manager said no. I believe that the restrictions will now be in place until 22 March.

When the minister meets the group tomorrow, I hope that he will discuss those matters. I hope that he will also apologise to Campbell Duke and Natasha Hamilton, and to the others who are listening today. It is great to hear tributes from Gillian Mackay and others about the importance of the motion and the principles, but anyone who votes for the Government amendment today will erase Anne Duke from the motion.

The motion amplifies the voices of the people who are asking us to get it right. That is not my opinion, or that of Jackie Baillie, Alex Cole-Hamilton or anyone in the chamber; it is what the group, which does not feel listened to, has been saying.

For new members, I point out that, in October 2020, a motion was lodged in my name that recognised the importance of family caregivers—I say to the minister that we did not talk about visitors; we talked about caregivers. At that point, 200 days had passed, and Jackie Baillie is right to say that we are now two years down the line.

In that debate, we all agreed the principles, yet we do not have Anne’s law. We even paid tribute to politicians in Ontario for legislation that they were progressing—the More Than a Visitor Act (Caregiving in Congregate Care Settings), 2020.

I think that the Tory amendment today is correct, and we will be able to support it.

I want to talk about two women: Hollie, who is 37; and Alice Hall, who is 97. Holly has a learning disability and lives in a care home. She wrote to the minister at the end of January, I believe, saying:

“It feels like I’m back to square one again. It feels like I’m a prisoner again.”

She feels forgotten. Alice knows that her time on this earth is limited. Her daughter, Sheila, said:

“after 2 long years, 3 vaccines, surviving Covid ... surviving isolation ... my mum needs to have the same freedoms as everyone else in Scotland.”

The situation is urgent, as my colleague Paul O’Kane conveyed. We need to stop the dithering and discrimination. On behalf of care home relatives Scotland, I say to the minister: please bring back to our care homes the love, hope and joy that are missing. People want joy; they want hope. People living in care homes—they are living in their own homes, as has been rightly said—do not deserve to be treated differently.

Yes, we should protect people in care homes using all the infection prevention and control tools that we have, but the Government must stop making excuses. I beg ministers just to get on and take this action on behalf of Anne’s family and all the other families who are living through the situation today.

Several times in his speech, the minister talked about “visitors”. He did not talk about family care givers. Alex Cole-Hamilton has recognised the important contribution of people such as Campbell Duke and Natasha Hamilton, who are in the building today, listening to every word. They are not visitors—they are family care givers. Does Alex Cole-Hamilton agree?

Robert and Mick, do you have anything to add?

The last word goes to you, Mick.

Thank you, Michael, and thank you for acknowledging that today is international women’s day. I have a very brief question on that. Robert Samson has already touched on the point about women’s safety. We heard from Mick Hogg about how many stations are unstaffed and that there are concerns about the safety of the workforce. This is a bit of a hot topic at the moment and the Government wants to have a national conversation about it, so are there any lessons that we can learn from international best practice? I would be interested to hear whether you have any knowledge on that. I will go to Michael Clark and then Robert Samson.

That was really helpful. Do you have anything to add, Michael?

For transparency, I declare an interest as a member of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers parliamentary group and of Unite the union.

Good morning, panel. My first question is probably best aimed at Mick Hogg. I was pleased to hear him say that early discussions between the RMT and the new Minister for Transport have been positive—that is encouraging. I am aware that the current ScotRail franchise has a no compulsory redundancy commitment, which is for all ScotRail staff. However, I understand that the Scottish Government has so far not agreed to continue that commitment under a publicly owned ScotRail. Will you give an update on that and set out the importance of a no compulsory redundancy policy?

Thank you for that, Mick. I think that we all want to see improving industrial relations.

The deputy convener has talked about the importance of looking to the future. I am not sure whether Mick Hogg can still hear us, because his screen has frozen. I will keep going unless I am told otherwise.

That is good. Thinking about the deputy convener’s important point about the future, I know that Scotland’s four rail unions—the RMT, Unite, the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen and the Transport Salaried Staffs Association—have published the report, “A Vision for Scotland’s Railways”. I am interested in hearing what the other panel members think of that report, but first of all, will Mick Hogg clarify whether trade union representatives will sit on the new publicly owned ScotRail? Has that been confirmed?