Official Report 1122KB pdf
The next item of business is topical question time. As ever, I would be grateful for concise questions and responses.
National Care Service (Co-design Process)
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the reported announcement that Unite the union has withdrawn from the co-design process of the national care service. (S6T-01149)
I have welcomed the engagement with Unite and other unions in recent months, and I am more than happy to directly engage with Unite on the substantive points that it raises. Unite has stated that it wants “a cast iron guarantee” that public service social care staff will continue to work in the publicly owned sector, and I am happy to give that. There is no circumstance in which we would want to see a transfer of public sector staff to independent providers. We continue to encourage everyone to play a full role in the co-design process for the national care service to ensure that we collectively deliver the public services that people need.
The minister’s answer would be funny if this were not such a serious issue. Pat Rafferty, the Scottish secretary of Unite, has described the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill as “not fit for purpose”. Unite’s intervention joins a growing chorus of voices raising significant concerns about the lack of clarity on what the bill will achieve in practice. All of that begs the question of why the bill was not co-designed from the beginning, before we had the proposed legislation in front of us.
Unite’s withdrawal is a significant development. The union represents thousands of social care workers who are on the front line of delivery. On countless occasions, the minister has talked about the importance of a co-design process in shaping the national care service. Can he explain why so many stakeholders, particularly those representing front-line care workers, have lost confidence in his national care service proposal?
In all of this, we have to listen to the people of Scotland, and particularly the voices of those with lived experience who want change in our social care system. Scotland’s community health and social care system has seen significant incremental change over the past 20 years but, despite that, people with experience of care and support, and of providing it, have been clear that significant issues remain. Change of the scale set out in the bill is necessary to deliver consistency in the quality of care and support across Scotland, the care and support that people deserve and the ending of postcode lotteries. The bill sets out a framework for change, and it is important that the Parliament has a chance to scrutinise that framework early to empower people to contribute via the co-design process.
The minister talks about listening to people, but he has his fingers in his ears. How many key stakeholders will have to withdraw from the co-design process before he starts treating the issue with the seriousness that it demands? The concerns that Unite has raised reinforce wide-ranging concerns that have already been aired by professional bodies, trade unions and front-line workers. Many trade unions have described the bill as not fit for purpose, and many have said that the minister needs to get back round the table, do the co-design process properly and think again. Indeed, the Parliament’s own Finance and Public Administration Committee—
Can we please have a question, Mr O’Kane?
—which is chaired by a Scottish National Party colleague, voiced its concern on the cost of the bill. The minister needs to wake up and smell the coffee—
Mr O’Kane, you need to put your question, please.
Will the minister recognise that his proposals have lost the confidence of key stakeholders and commit to pausing the bill?
I and the Government will continue to listen to people, but the top priority here is the voices of people with lived experience who feel that there have been huge implementation gaps over the years in our social care system. That is why we agreed to co-design with the voices of lived experience and other stakeholders. We will listen to Parliament, look at the parliamentary committee report and listen to trade unions. I have already said that I am more than willing to listen to Unite on the matter, but one of the key elements is that we have to listen to the people who are in receipt of care and support, who want change and want an end to the postcode lotteries that currently exist.
The Scottish Conservatives have warned for months that the Scottish National Party’s plans for a national care service are unnecessary, unworkable and could fatally undermine local care provision. Now that Unite has warned that the plans will push staff and the control of social care into “unspecified, unaccountable ministerial quangos”, will the minister finally throw in the towel and instead put all his energies into fixing the crisis that the SNP has created in Scotland’s social care system?
We are not waiting for the national care service to improve social care in Scotland. We are very pressured at the moment, in both our health service and our social care system, and what we see is a need for change. What is going on at the moment quite clearly shows that change is required. [Interruption.] Mr Hoy may shout “piffle” from a sedentary position, but I think that, if he spoke to people from across the country who are in receipt of care and support, they would say that change is required. That is why the Government has brought forward the proposals. We will continue to listen to people, but we must listen first and foremost to those who are in receipt of that care and support.
Could the minister give an indication of how much of the social care workforce is unionised and what benefits he thinks the national care service will bring in terms of pay, conditions and sectoral bargaining?
The 2017 labour force survey indicated that 19 per cent of social care workers have their pay and conditions affected by agreements between employer and trade unions. The national care service will provide for full sectoral bargaining and therefore lead to greater equalisation of pay and terms and conditions across the whole of the social care workforce. By rewarding and valuing the workforce fairly, we will deliver the best possible service for the people of Scotland and make the sector fit for the future and more attractive to people coming into the profession.
I am not sure that undermining trade unionism is the best way to go about trying to listen to the trade unions. The minister said that he is listening, but the Unite trade union has stopped listening to him. The bill has few friends. It was condemned by the Finance and Public Administration Committee and criticised by the Education, Children and Young People Committee, and the Government still cannot make its mind up whether children’s services should be in or out. Children are an afterthought once again. The bill is doomed. Why can the minister not see the writing on the wall?
I should declare an interest as a trade unionist. I am a member of Unison and someone who will never ignore the trade unions, because I have been a trade unionist for all of my adult life. We will listen to people as we move forward, but change is required. The change that is required is brought to the fore by the voices of people with lived experience, who are often forgotten about in the debates that we are having in Parliament about the national care service. We must get it right for people, remove the postcode lotteries that currently exist and rid ourselves of the implementation gaps. By co-designing the service with people with lived experience, carers, front-line staff, trade unions and other stakeholders, we will get it right for the people of Scotland. We have to have a sustainable—
Briefly, minister.
—care system for the future, and that is what we intend to do.
It is clear that the minister is on a repeat cycle with his answers, and is not answering the questions that are being asked. Let me ask him again about Willie Rennie’s point on the co-design of the future of children’s services, because it remains very unclear. When precisely will the minister resolve the concerns of people who work in children’s services, and when will the Government finally disclose what the future of children’s services looks like in relation to any future national care service, however dubious the possibility of establishing one might be?
I apologise to Mr Rennie for missing out that part of his question.
The national care service consultation, which was based on the adult social care independent review, added to a number of other questions about where children’s services and criminal justice should lie, and whether they should be in or out of the national care service. Obviously, the consultation drew on the recommendations of the Feeley report, but that covered adults only.
The Government has stated that we would carry out work to ensure that we have all the right analysis around whether children’s services should be out or in. I will write to the member on the specific date when that work on children’s services will finish, but I have relayed that again and again at committee.
We want to get this right for all. We will do so, and we are carrying out the work to do so.
Retail Sector (Empty Shops)
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to a recent study conducted by the Scottish Retail Consortium, which found that one in six shops are lying empty in Scotland. (S6T-01146)
Scotland’s retail sector is experiencing huge challenges in trading conditions, not least as it tries to recover from the impact of the pandemic. Although there were encouraging signs of increased trade and footfall in the run-up to Christmas, there is no doubt that the cost of living crisis will continue to impact on businesses and town centres.
The Scottish Government is working with local authorities and key business stakeholders to revitalise our city and town centres. We have established a retail industry leadership group, which I co-chair with the chief operating officer of John Lewis, to work collaboratively to chart a brighter future for retail in Scotland and deliver on the commitments in our retail strategy.
The Scottish Retail Consortium and industry bodies have asked that rates relief for small businesses match the 75 per cent that is being offered by the United Kingdom Government. Is that likely to become a reality for the struggling sector?
As I outlined in an answer to the member’s colleague Annie Wells last week, we have set out a package of support through the non-domestic rates system that will see 95 per cent of properties liable for a lower tax rate than they would be liable for elsewhere in the UK. As a consequence of our generous small business bonus scheme—the most generous in the UK—more than 50 per cent of properties in retail, hospitality and leisure will not pay any rates.
The reality is that replicating the reliefs to which the member refers would mean taking funding from elsewhere in NDR or another portfolio area. If any member wishes to advocate that, I would be happy to discuss the matter, but I ask that they identify where the corresponding reduction elsewhere in the budget should be.
The crisis on our high streets is stark. Scotland’s vacancy rate is above that of the United Kingdom as a whole. Does the Scottish Government accept those findings, and does it acknowledge that it has failed to adequately support the retail sector and high streets in Scotland for some considerable time?
I recognise that there are variations in occupancy rates across the UK, which reflect circumstances, but I reject the member’s assertion that we have failed to support the sector, not least given the support that we have provided through the non-domestic rates system.
Beyond that, we are taking forward work as part of our retail strategy and our town centre action plan, many of the recommendations of which have been given effect through national planning framework 4, which will be adopted formally on 13 February.
I take the opportunity to recommend to members and ask that they engage with the consultation on community wealth building, which I published this morning. Community wealth building will be an essential tool in revitalising our town and city centres, and I urge all members to take part in that consultation.
Many of the levers and resources to deal with the pressures that businesses face as a result of rising energy costs remain reserved. They include VAT on fuel, regulation of the energy market and taxation on windfall profits. Will the minister provide an update on the Scottish Government’s latest engagement with the United Kingdom Government regarding the supports that are available to businesses in Scotland to help with rising energy costs? What further measures should the UK Government introduce to mitigate those pressures?
Bill Kidd is correct to highlight the macroeconomic factors that are outwith the Parliament’s immediate control. The significant cut by the UK Government in its support for businesses with their energy costs beyond March is concerning, particularly for the most vulnerable sectors.
My ministerial colleagues wrote to the UK Government at the end of last year to express their disappointment at our lack of opportunities to engage in the review of the energy bill relief scheme and to stress that any continued support should be aimed at the businesses and sectors that need it most. Along with businesses, ministers have repeatedly called on the UK Government to take action, including through a reduction of VAT on energy bills and an extension of the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme and other loans.
M&Co Trading, which had a head office in Renfrewshire and has branches across the West Scotland region and the rest of the UK, went into administration last month. What discussions has the Scottish Government had with the administrators and UK Government departments on the matter? Will the Scottish Government set up a task force to support the workforce and ensure that we do not have more empty shops in our town centres?
I thank Katy Clark for raising that point. I share her concern, not least because there is an M&Co branch in my constituency. I recognise the uncertainty that the situation brings to employees.
I met the administrators of M&Co within the past two weeks. We had a useful discussion, but it is a challenging set of circumstances. I have reiterated that the Scottish Government stands ready to offer support in any practical way that we can if there is an opportunity to save M&Co. However, we are working, through partnership action for continuing employment, to ensure that support is provided to staff who face redundancy or are at risk of redundancy.
I am happy to consider any options, but, given the challenging set of circumstances, I am not yet convinced that a task force would be appropriate. I would be happy to discuss with Katy Clark what opportunities might be available to provide further support.
Air ais
Business Motion