Chamber and committees

Professor Jaacks, very briefly, please.

We must move on, because we are running hugely behind time and still have seven themes to cover. We might be able to get back to some of what you were going to ask.

Thank you, cabinet secretary, that is much appreciated. We will move straight to questions from Carol Mochan.

I remind members that I hold a bank nurse contract with NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde.

I welcome the progress that the Scottish Government has made in reducing waiting lists, and it is disappointing that Labour consistently talks down our national health service and our hard-working staff. In that vein, what can the cabinet secretary say about the recent figures in relation to the number of GPs, paramedics and the wider NHS workforce?

Today, too many households are still struggling with the cost of food, energy bills and everyday essentials. Decisions that are taken at Westminster continue to make life more difficult for families, communities and businesses across the country. They have faced years of austerity, a hard Brexit that has been imposed on Scotland, and completely and utterly catastrophic economic mismanagement by successive UK Governments.

No doubt my Scottish Labour colleagues who sit to my right will again try to distance themselves from the billions of pounds-worth of cuts made by their UK Labour colleagues, but I will set the scene with a quick rundown of just some of their greatest hits. They have refused to end the two-child benefit cap, and so have pushed more children into poverty. They have blocked compensation for the women against state pension inequality—the WASPI women. They have slashed international aid. They have tried to introduce billions of pounds-worth of cuts to disabled people and imposed a tax on jobs and public services by hiking employer national insurance contributions. The pockets of the young, the poor, the disabled and the elderly have been raided under Labour, and speculation is mounting that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is set to announce another wave of tax rises and spending cuts.

We are only just into September, and I am already hearing from constituents who are worried about yet another rise in energy bills. Those are the same constituents who had Labour leaflets pushed through their doors, promising that their bills would go down by £300.

Today, I will expand on one of those points: child poverty. The persistence of child poverty is testament to how families across the UK and the whole of Scotland have been absolutely failed by Westminster. It should be a mark of shame for the Labour Government that child poverty is rising in the rest of the UK and is expected to hit record highs by the end of this Westminster session.

Meanwhile, in Scotland, the First Minister has said that the eradication of child poverty is his single most important objective, and the Scottish Government is taking action and turning the tide. Organisations such as the Joseph Rowntree Foundation have highlighted SNP policies such as the Scottish child payment and the mitigation of the two-child limit as ones that see Scotland bucking the trend.

Research led by Professor Ruth Patrick shows that the Labour Westminster Government could cut child poverty in the UK by a sixth if it were to match Scotland’s investment in social security. That represents 700,000 children who would be lifted out of poverty overnight. We have to ask the question: what is stopping the Labour Government? The progress that Scotland has made on driving down poverty rates shows that another way is possible if the political will is there.

Last week, I visited Rutherglen and Cambuslang Foodbank in my constituency to meet the new manager and to learn more about its upcoming move. With that visit and today’s debate in mind, I was very interested to read a report on the Scottish child payment that the Trussell Trust commissioned from the Fraser of Allander Institute. The Trussell Trust praised the payment as an example of

“an important lever for reducing the need for food banks”

by lifting families out of the deep poverty that leads to their use.

The report found evidence that the Scottish child payment

“successfully reduced food bank usage”

for single-adult households with children, households with three or more children and those with children aged five to 16. Although that research was exploratory in nature, the results are very promising and give us reason for optimism for when larger data sets are available. We are talking about breaking cycles of deep poverty and allowing families not just to pay for essential items and live with more dignity and freedom but to participate in more opportunities and to thrive.

In South Lanarkshire, where my Rutherglen constituency is based, more than 20,000 children and young people are benefiting from the Scottish child payment. More than 21,500 children and young people received best start grant and best start food payments. Those are families in our communities who are getting money directly in their pockets, which eases their household pressures. That is what tackling child poverty head on looks like. Although Labour continues to sit on its hands at Westminster, refusing to reverse the cruel two-child cap, which is widely recognised as one of the biggest drivers of child poverty, the SNP has taken action to effectively scrap that cruel policy in Scotland from next March.

With the powers available to us via this Parliament, the SNP Government is taking action to keep more money in people’s pockets through these tough times. Whether we are talking about social security support that is available only in Scotland, the expansion of free school meals, funded childcare worth £6,000 per year, free prescriptions and eye appointments, free university tuition, free bus travel for 2.3 million people or scrapping peak rail fares, that action is making a difference to families across the country. The SNP Government is saving people money, but the UK Government is doing nothing to help people in our communities with soaring bills. This is a story of action versus distraction, and the SNP has chosen action, which demonstrates what happens when decisions for Scotland can be—and are—made in Scotland.

As an independent nation, we could do so much more, and that is what the SNP is fighting for. Through our actions and our vision over the next year, we will show that independence is the fresh start that Scotland needs.

I will come on to that point later in my speech, but the long and the short of it is yes, I do.

Yesterday, I met First Bus to relay my and my constituents’ concerns about the changes, and I left the company in no doubt about my opposition to the removal of what is a vital service that links together communities in my constituency such as Springhall, Fernhill, Cathkin, Whitlawburn and Halfway.

At my request, First Bus has now committed to undertaking further studies to see whether, should the 65 be withdrawn, alternative routes could be created to serve the communities that stand to lose out. Unfortunately, First Bus has advised that that will not be a quick process and that nothing is guaranteed, so I will continue to do what I can to urge First Bus to maintain the number 65 route.

One of my major concerns about the process is the fact that constituents do not seem to have a formal role to play in opposing timetable changes or service cuts. Of course, they can lodge complaints or raise issues with their elected representatives, but I am keen to learn from the minister whether bus users can play a more formal role in relation to any changes that are proposed by bus companies. How can we make that happen?

I have long supported and called for private bus services in South Lanarkshire to be moved into public ownership to avoid the issues that I have outlined are impacting my community and to allow for joined-up thinking and planning in relation to the network. Currently, bus services are at risk of being reduced or completely cancelled at relatively short notice, with little or no meaningful consultation.

Under franchising, such decisions would fall to a local transport authority, which would have a responsibility towards, and would be accountable to, the communities that it serves.

I thank Patrick Harvie for bringing this debate to the chamber. It has proved to be timely for residents in my Rutherglen constituency. At its heart, this debate is about people. It is about how our communities operate and thrive, and how they access services, employment, education and leisure. Our communities should have the assurance and confidence that our bus networks are affordable, green and a reliable alternative to cars.

Last week, I received notification from First Bus that it is completely withdrawing from service the number 65 bus between Glasgow city centre and Halfway in Cambuslang. The letter that I received about the cut states that the withdrawal of the service will allow the company to improve timetables across other parts of greater Glasgow. It also includes a list of alternative journey options, which include the number 21 service.

Since that announcement, my constituency office has been flooded with calls and messages from constituents who are deeply worried and angry about the proposals. I take this opportunity to thank all those who have been in touch with me over the past week to share their concerns and experiences. Many of them have made the point that the number 21 service, which is one of the apparent alternatives, is also subject to service reductions, with changes to its frequency and running times.

Some have described the number 65 service as a lifeline that allows them to access vital services, including many disabled or elderly residents who are set to lose their only route to town centres. Others have told me that they will now need to take two or three buses to get to their work or face a long walk to a stop, either because their bus is disappearing altogether or because its hours are being drastically reduced.

At the same time, South Lanarkshire Council is cutting school bus services to around 8,000 school pupils. In a letter to families in Cambuslang, the number 65 bus was cited as an alternative means of getting to school from August this year. As if it was not bad enough that they are losing their school transport, those families are feeling abandoned yet again. It is not surprising that the idea that the removal of the number 65 is somehow positive news for greater Glasgow as a whole has been met with much cynicism and anger in my constituency.

Thank you, Presiding Officer, for the opportunity to speak to the legislative consent motion on the Employment Rights Bill, as convener of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee. As members will be aware, on 10 June 2025, the committee published its report on the supplementary legislative consent memorandum as it relates to the bill. That was triggered due to the provisions in the bill regarding social care negotiating bodies, as well as various other amendments that fell under the health and social care remit. I am pleased to say that a majority of committee members recommended that the subsequent draft supplementary motion be agreed by Parliament. The Health, Social Care and Sport Committee recognises the importance of the bill and, more importantly, the need for comprehensive scrutiny of the provisions that require legislative consent.

Although employment law is a reserved matter, the provisions in the bill will have massive implications for Scotland’s workforce, particularly in social care. That is why we sought extensive evidence from stakeholders, both in written form and in oral evidence to the committee. To that end, I thank the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, Glasgow City Council, Health and Social Care Scotland, Scottish Care, the Scottish Social Services Council and Social Work Scotland for their engagement on the matter. I give special thanks to the witnesses who gave oral evidence on 20 May.

Although I am unable to give a summary of the extensive evidence that was received regarding the supplementary LCM and the bill more generally, our report contains a comprehensive overview of the key points that were raised during those sessions. That said, one of the main themes that echoed throughout was the need for continued collaboration when it comes to creating an effective negotiating body for social care. As is highlighted in our report, members were keen to hear more about the on-going discussions with trade unions, as well as the work of the fair work in social care group. I am grateful to the then Minister for Social Care, Mental Wellbeing and Sport, Maree Todd MSP, and her supporting officials for speaking to the supplementary LCM and addressing the points that were raised by stakeholders in evidence to the committee.

Although union membership in social care currently sits at around 20 per cent of the workforce, concentrated largely among local government employees, the committee nevertheless welcomes the minister’s commitment to promote increased union membership across the social care sector as a means of improving terms, pay and conditions. That said, we note the minister’s comments that time must now be spent bottoming out the Scottish social care sector’s preference, be that a voluntary arrangement or statutory underpinning. We strongly encourage the Scottish Government to continue to do its best to seek consensus with relevant stakeholders, so that we can achieve better and fairer work conditions for those in the social care sector, which are arguably long overdue.

On behalf of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, I hope that the bill’s provisions will be a positive step in the right direction for Scotland’s social care workforce. I look forward to assisting further scrutiny in that area, where my committee’s remit is engaged.

I welcome Tom Arthur to his new role. I have not had an opportunity to do that formally, and I welcome the approach that he will take to working with the committee.

On that very point, the decision is—as the member will have heard in my speech—very much a hot topic. Is she aware of SPT having consulted with South Lanarkshire Council?