Seòmar agus comataidhean

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the reported decision to delay the progress of all new NHS capital projects for up to two years, including the Ayr national treatment centre. (S6T-01801)

The impact of the delays will be felt not just in Ayrshire. Across Scotland, important promises have been broken. Neil Gray’s constituents will have similar feelings to my own, as the SNP Government cannot even deliver a new Monklands hospital in the cabinet secretary’s own back yard. Those promises were made by the SNP Government. Patients wait for years on waiting lists, and staff are working in buildings that are literally crumbling. In response, rather than delivering the local health provision that it has promised, the SNP has put the brakes on developments that are critical for the future. If the Government cannot be trusted to deliver the project in the cabinet secretary’s own back yard, the Parliament has to be updated on the timescale for the projects to be undertaken.

I thank Gordon MacDonald for bringing the debate to the chamber. We cannot speak about gas, electricity, energy and power without acknowledging the enormous power imbalance between the provider and the consumer, which members—in particular, Ivan McKee—have mentioned. It is well documented and universally acknowledged that there is a power imbalance.

I think that we all agree that how we purchase energy is not easy to understand. The system is weighted against some of our most vulnerable citizens and does not have a fair deal for users at its heart. The tariffs across the UK are unacceptable. The motion speaks about the rates in Scotland, but members will know now, because the minister spoke about it, that the tariffs are enormously high and enormously variable across the UK. I had a quick look earlier, and Gillian Martin was absolutely right to say that north Wales and Liverpool have the highest tariffs in the UK.

This is an inequality issue across the UK. We need to find solutions for fellow citizens in Scotland and across the UK, wherever we can. Citizens Advice Scotland is deeply concerned about the current affordability challenges in the energy market. It feels that consumers who struggled with rising costs and accrued energy debt last year will continue to struggle, even as we go into the fairer months.

Members have mentioned the Citizens Advice Scotland data. From July to September 2023, the Citizens Advice Scotland network provided 18,546 pieces of advice related to regulated fuels, which relates to the point about how complicated it is for people who are in a vulnerable situation. Demand for energy debt advice increased by 34 per cent, and the average energy debt for people who sought complex debt advice from the network in Scotland was more than £2,000.

It is difficult to cover everything in a short debate, but, when we talk about energy, we need to talk about Scotland’s energy potential in relation to both climate change and who should benefit from the development of our energy potential. Members have spoken about Scotland being potentially a provider of very large amounts of energy.

An important element of the debate on energy for me, Scottish Labour and the trade union movement is the just transition. It is, of course, a transition that will help our planet, but it must have ordinary people, ordinary families and ordinary workers at its core. How do we make that transition fair?

The on-going cost of living crisis has shown how deeply the climate emergency and poverty are linked. Fuel costs, in particular, have spiralled, as we have heard from members across the chamber, and we have heard that things such as inefficient houses and expensive transport exacerbate poverty while causing carbon to be emitted into our atmosphere.

The brunt of the crisis has been felt disproportionately by people who are living on the lowest incomes—most members agree with that. Fuel poverty is a major concern, and we must address it whenever we can. We know that energy tariffs are a reserved matter, but I agree that the Scottish Parliament should discuss such matters to ensure that we have an understanding of the consequences for our constituents and to allow us to look at what we can do, within our devolved responsibilities, to help those who are most affected.

We need a clear plan that helps us to sprint towards clean power. That will reduce energy bills for all—including, of course, our most vulnerable people.

I am very aware of the time, but one other thing that I want to talk about is my wish to see us move to community-owned sources of energy. I hope that we might get another chance to discuss that in the chamber, because it is such an important matter.

I thank all the members who have contributed tonight.

On behalf of Scottish Labour, I associate myself with the Deputy First Minister’s remarks—I wish Elena Whitham well and thank her for her work in this area.

I thank the Deputy First Minister for advance sight of her statement. Scottish Labour accepts, as per the evidence, that minimum unit pricing has a role to play in tackling alcohol harms, but we believe that it must be part of a wider package of measures over and above that. That position is shared by 30 public health-related organisations and charities. Does the Deputy First Minister agree that steps must be taken to explore how the additional revenue that is raised by minimum unit pricing can be recouped and invested in tackling alcohol harms in Scotland?

I, too, thank Rona Mackay for bringing this important debate to the chamber and, like other members, I welcome everyone in the gallery: the members of Deafblind Scotland, the interpreters and all the families. It is absolutely great to see them here.

As we have heard, deafblindness is a low-incidence but very high-impact disability. I believe that the work by the cross-party group, by members of the deafblind community and by the families involved means that we have made progress. However, this debate allows us to bring the issue to the chamber and, therefore, closer to the Minister for Social Care, Mental Wellbeing and Sport, who, I hope, will have some good news to bring us in her closing remarks. I know from speaking to members of Deafblind Scotland earlier today that the minister has spent some time with the community, and that is really welcome.

As we have heard, deafblindness is a combination of hearing and sight loss. A deafblind person will not necessarily be completely blind and/or deaf, as was explained to me this afternoon. However, both senses are affected enough to create difficulties in everyday life, in areas that we all take for granted such as communication, assessing information and simply getting around. As I discussed earlier, that is why it is important to get a definition for the disability.

In my time in the Scottish Parliament, much of our debating time has been taken up, quite rightly, by looking at how we ensure that human rights are enshrined in our everyday work, policies and laws. This members’ business debate is very much linked to that important aspect, as recognising that those with the disability have human rights will allow us to ensure that services are provided on that basis.

An estimated 31,000 deafblind people currently live in Scotland. As we have heard, however, Scotland lacks a legal definition of deafblindness. In my speaking notes, I have written, “Why is that important?” From talking to those in the community and to Deafblind Scotland, I know that it is important to that community to be recognised, so I want to bring that issue to the chamber—I did not have it in my notes, because I was looking at more clinical policy-based reasons, but it is important to the community that that is recognised.

In reading up on why we, in Parliament, might find that important with regard to legislation and regulation, I found that definition is a crucial step towards identifying and diagnosing people with dual sensory loss as early as possible so that support workers, clinicians and those in the social care network can address, at the earliest opportunity, the unique challenges that people face. That includes the provision of services that are, as we have heard today, unique to individuals in that community. If we miss that opportunity early on, it is a missed opportunity for that person and their life.

The cross-party group on deafness in the Scottish Parliament has been well supported. Rona Mackay has done a lot of good work, and Annabelle Ewing’s support in this area is well recognised.

I am running out of time, but I highlight that, from my experience of working with families, we need to understand and believe people who are receiving services and their families, because they know what we need to do to change lives. I hope that the minister has some good news for us today, because we need a definition to enable us to move on and make proper policy decisions and support commitments to people. That is important. I thank members for their contributions, and I thank those in the public gallery, too.

I want to follow up on the points that have been made about an impact assessment. You were concerned that the costs increased more in previous years. Do you have concerns that that will be the case again this year and that local authorities will need to meet the costs that are not in the agreed settlement?

I have a short follow-up question for Justina Murray. The alcohol industry often says that it already puts money into funding services. Do you think that the MUP model or the levy model might allow us, in a better way, to put money into public services and use that across Scotland to support the harms that you have spoken about? How do you see that working?

Dr MacGilchrist, I am interested in the medical community that works in this area. I am sure that you discuss MUP as part of that whole package. Are the medics who work in the area generally quite convinced that MUP has helped and that we should uprate it?

That is helpful—thank you.

I want to be clear. I suppose that, in your modelling, you anticipate that local government will need to make some contribution to costs because you think that there will be an increase in costs, as in the previous three years.