The bill says:

“the National Care Service is to be an exemplar in its approach to fair work for the people who work for it and on its behalf, ensuring that they are recognised and valued for the critically important work that they do.”

That is what we can build on—again, this is a framework bill. Do you agree that it is a good idea to have that statement about fair work in the bill? I direct that question to Roz Foyer, because she is nodding.

I want to pick up on Paul O’Kane’s point. He said that there is ambivalence about the bill. What I see is flat-out negativity against it. Do you think that part of the issue is that people are used to seeing detail in legislation, but the bill is a framework bill, so what comes after will be bite-sized pieces of legislation that will be able to be scrutinised and interpreted, then agreed on or amended and then delivered? I am really interested in hearing what Alison Bavidge and perhaps Maree Allison, too, have to say about that.

The people on the ground are asking for the bill. I have just read something about an action group from Falkirk that basically said:

“The National Care Service will have equality, dignity and human rights at its heart. It will empower people to make the choices that are right for them.”

One of my constituents has had eight social workers in eight months. The bill aims to slim out some of the bureaucracy and to make it easier—to make it a choice—for the people on the ground to choose self-directed support or whatever they want. I am interested in that aspect. Perhaps people need to hear more about what a framework bill is and what comes after that.

I will go to Alison Bavidge first.

Research and training—clinical nurse educator was my career for many years—are in the bill. In the section entitled, “Research”, the bill says:

“The Scottish Ministers and care boards may do any of the following in relation to research relevant to the services that the National Care Service provides—

(a) conduct it,

(b) assist others in conducting it,

(c) give financial assistance in relation to it.”

That will enable us to say in further legislation that we absolutely value research and training—and training leads to quality care, improvements and career progression. The bill is a framework bill, which will enable further research and training as we move forward with the national care service.

I am not sure whether that was a question or just a comment.

It is just a wee short one.

I will go back to multidisciplinary team working. I gave the example earlier of a person who had eight social workers. I have heard examples of support workers who look after people seeing deterioration that requires a step up in care. Currently, that requires a referral for further assessment, which takes time, although it is obvious to the support worker that additional care is required. As part of multidisciplinary team working, would it be better if direct engagement could flatten the bureaucracy so that faster response times could be delivered for people who need their care to be escalated? I see that Colin Poolman is nodding.

It is clear that, in the current climate, the NHS faces recruitment challenges across the four nations in attracting people with the right skills from outwith the UK. Does the health secretary agree that comments such as those of Mr Sweeney’s UK party leader, Keir Starmer, do not reflect the welcoming nature of Scotland’s NHS, and that Brexit, which Labour now clearly backs, is a further barrier to recruitment in our NHS?

Donald Cameron mentioned Duolingo. There isnae a Duolingo fur Scots. Would he encourage a Duolingo being created to help folk speak Scots better?

The member talks about technology. One of the things that is happening in Dumfries and Galloway, when they are recruiting new nurses, is that they are yaising Scots so that, when the nurses look efter patients, when somebody says that they have a sair heid, it is something that even nurses from other countries can understand. Would you welcome that?

As the co-convener o the Scots leid cross-pairty group wi ma colleague Jackie Dunbar MSP, I am awfie chuffed tae speik and I will focus my contribution on Scots.

I want tae see legislation endorsin the Scots leid and I threap that we need an act fur the Scots leid.

The Scots leid is a michtie important pairt o Scotland’s cultural heirship, kythin in sang, poems and leeterature, and in ilkaday yaise in wir communities forby.

The 2011 census comprehendit a question anent the Scots leid fur the first time. Yin and a hauf million folk reportit that they could speik Scots and 1.9 million cumulatively reportit that they could speik, read, scrieve or unnerstaun Scots. I look forrit tae the results o the maist recent census—I jalouse that these nummers will be mair—fur tae see aw the nummers o oor folk wha speik, read, scrieve and unnerstaun Scots. Scots isnae jist a collection o regional dialects. There is a muckle history o this now evolvin leid.

Here is a wee quote fae Scots scriever, television presenter and broadcaister, Alistair Heather:

“The Scots have kent that they’ve had their ain leid fur the last six hunner year. It’s only in the last 40 that they’ve forgotten it.”

The activists fur Scots will mak siccar that wir wirds will be shared in aa ways—as I said, through sangs, poems and essays, on telly, radio and social media, and across the internet in monie forms.

Here in Scotland, we have soonds in place names and people’s names that dinnae match the spellings: Cullean castle is spelt Culzean; Mingies is spelt Menzies; Kirkgounyon—a village near Dalbeattie—is spelt Kirkgunzeon; and Dee-el is spelt Dalziel. Those names are all currently misspelled because they contain the letter yogh, which is the 27th letter o the Scots alphabet. It has been lost; it is tint. The yogh was replaced by Z or Y in early printers. At some point in the future, we should correct that muckle mistake and bring back the letter yogh.

As we have heard, Scots is our hame language. It is one of the three languages in use in Scotland the day. Words in Scots by the likes o Robert Burns, Walter Scott and Hugh MacDiarmid are scrievit on the foonds o the walls—the foundations o this buildin. Scots words are literally haudin up oor national Parliament.

The Scots Language Centre, Hands up for Trad, the Scots language awards, Wee Windaes, Oor Vyce, Scots Hoose and ambassadors sic as Lennie Pennie, Emma Grae, Billy Kay, my pal Susi Briggs fae Galloway—she is a braw storyteller—and sic a few mair help tae widen access tae Scots. Aa these folk, and mair, are daein fantastic work and they need supportit.

In session 4 o wir Parliament, Rob Gibson MSP convened the Scots leid cross-party group, which created the statement o principles tae advance Scots. As the statement o principles says, naebodie should be penalised or pitten doon fur speikin Scots. There are 13 statements o principle in Rob’s wee red book. Some o them are bein addressed the noo, but some havenae been yet.

Nummer 5 in the statement o principles shows that the Scots leid must receive mair fundin and investment. Currently, the Scottish Government provides £480,000 in funding fur the Scots leid each year. That compares wi £29.6 million spent on Gaelic. In nae way am I sayin that Gaelic isnae important. It absolutely is. Across Scotland, we hae monie historic ties tae Gaelic, includin place names in Dumfries and Galloway, where I am fae. However, my ask of the cabinet secretary is to increase funding fur the Scots leid tae secure its future. I hope that that can be addressed in the legislation.

The consultation that has been referred tae by monie folk, including the cabinet secretary the day—I encourage folk tae hae their say on that; ye have until midnight on 17 November—provides an exciting opportunity tae create a sustainable future fur Scots.

We aa need tae enhance the work of the Scots organisations, we need tae bolster the yaise o Scots in education and we need tae invest in Scots to mak siccar its future. Pursuin an act o the Scots leid is key tae deliverin the recognition that activists have been workin on fur monie a year. The Scots leid activists are daein a phenomenal job, and an act and funding support are crucial tae deliverin Scots education and awareness. As the auld Scots sayin goes, tak tent or it’s tint—take care or it’s lost.

I ask the cabinet secretary to comment on whether a Bòrd na Gàidhlig equivalent fur the Scots leid is needed, or can sicklike existing established bodies as the Scots Language Centre be vehicles to continue to deliver, as they are currently doing?

Again, I welcome the debate and look forrit tae ilka ither contribution.

Jamie Halcro Johnston mentioned Peter Chapman. He wanted tae join the cross-pairty group on the Scots leid. We dinnae have any Conservatives the noo. Would the member maybe do a bit of encouraging to see whether any o his colleagues will want tae join our cross-pairty group?