Chamber and committees

I welcome the opportunity to speak in the programme for government debate. So much has been mentioned that will need to be dissected in the coming weeks. This year’s programme for government has set out clear actions to deliver real change for the people of Scotland, against the most challenging financial backdrop since our Parliament was reconvened.

Last week, the Prime Minister was clear that the UK budget that will be delivered in October will be painful. The reality is that the UK’s finances will inevitably affect the funding that is available to us in Scotland. The SNP Scottish Government will continue to prioritise action to eradicate child poverty, grasp the opportunities of delivering net zero and grow the economy by attracting business investment and bolstering our public services. Although the Scottish Government will work with the UK Government wherever it can, it will continue to urge the UK Government to drop its impending damaging austerity agenda.

I will make only two points. The first is about Labour's shameless cut to the winter fuel payment, which will hit older people in Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders particularly hard. The second is about how the programme for government will benefit Dumfries and Galloway. Labour’s plan to strictly means test the winter fuel payment in England and Wales sees the Scottish Government’s funding for this newly devolved benefit suddenly reduced by £168 million. Devolving a benefit shortly after removing almost its entire budget is disrespectful to everybody who is involved in shaping the new policy in Scotland. That cut undermines the devolution settlement and ignores the importance of the payment to Scottish households, which face harsher winters and higher energy costs.

That will hit our pensioners in rural communities such as Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders particularly hard. The fact is that the cut is coming from Labour—the party that, just six weeks ago, said that it would.

“give pensioners security in retirement.”

In June, Anas Sarwar said:

“Read my lips: no austerity under Labour.”

Given that the “read my lips” soundbite came from right-wing Republican President George Bush Sr’s 1988 address to the Republican convention, it is hardly surprising that Anas Sarwar is aligning himself with the right-wing Republican playbook. The fact that Labour’s decision was made without any consultation with the Scottish Government has undermined Keir Starmer’s commitment to establish a better working relationship. The cut to the winter fuel payment is shameful, and I call on the UK Government to reverse it.

I welcome the fact that the SNP Government has prioritised economic growth and helping businesses, including those in Dumfries and Galloway, to grow and flourish. From tourism to finance and technology to food and drink exports, the Scottish Government will work to create growth and jobs and maximise the huge economic opportunities that lie ahead.

I also welcome the fact that the First Minister has included in the programme for government items on innovation, supporting entrepreneurs, and artificial intelligence and digital technology. We know how valuable AI can be in healthcare. I remind the chamber that I am still a registered nurse.

The First Minister has made it clear that the SNP Scottish Government is a firmly pro-business Administration. Scotland is open for business. The SNP is acutely aware of the enormous pressures that face businesses across the country and is taking decisive steps to offer support, despite the fact that we have limited powers and are working within a challenging budget. That includes investing more than £5 million across the Scottish Government to grow and transform our economic landscape and using every tool at our disposal to maximise economic growth for a clear purpose.

I again welcome the programme for government, which is good for our priorities, good for our people and good for our communities.

It is good that Clare Adamson mentioned the hing yer helmet campaign, which I was keen to support. It is about farmers wearing helmets and safety in fields and on roads, so I know that it is different from what Bob Doris and others are describing in relation to antisocial behaviour. Does the member agree that it sounds as though there is merit in the Scottish Government’s leading on that issue and taking some action?

Thanks.

Good morning to you all. My questioning is on the same theme—financial planning—but is about sustainability. Before I get to my first main question, I wonder what the legacy of Covid is. I think that we are still recovering. I have a simple question: are we still recovering from the global pandemic?

Is there anything that we should be doing on multiyear funding commitments? That issue comes up a lot in evidence. Can IJBs do anything to support sustainable planning as we move forward?

I have one final question. In your submission, Professor Bell, you talk about the NHS and how funding for boards varies widely. You say that that

“is difficult to explain in relation to markers such as deprivation or rurality.”

Dumfries and Galloway IJB is 79.4 per cent funded by the NHS, for example, whereas the figure for the north-east—Aberdeenshire—is 53.9 per cent. Can you explain why there is such variation in how the IJBs are funded?

Is that complexity caused by there being more people with more than one long-term condition?

I have one final quick question. I know that the NHS Highland model is the only lead model that is used with regard to the integration of joint boards. I find it interesting that the NHS has taken on that lead role, and I see that it has been talking about reducing overlap, improving care and having better co-ordination, which I suppose brings us back to collaboration. Has any modelling or assessment been done on the finance and efficiency opportunity of a lead model versus an integration model?

Caroline Cameron mentioned mental health in her first response. There can be one-off or initial funding for many such programmes, or funding can be annual. In relation to sustainability, what would be a different approach to tackling mental health issues, for example?

Good morning. I asked the previous panel about recovery from Covid, as we are still recovering from a global pandemic. I am interested to know, for instance, about the on-going financial costs of dealing with post-pandemic vaccinations and long-term care, which were unanticipated prior to the pandemic. Has the pandemic had an impact on on-going planning for finances? How has that impacted ye?

I am looking at you to answer first, Sharon, because your heid is up.