Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will, if it is brief.

We on the Labour benches have tried and tried to work together with the Government. However, as we have heard today, the Government proposed a national care service that was so unfit for purpose that nearly every stakeholder in the country—trade unions, councils and health boards—flatly rejected it. Conservative members opposite reminded us that four committees raised concerns. On top of that, the vast majority of carers whom we have spoken to simply do not recognise—

Of course, if it is brief.

In short, absolutely—I know that we are tight for time.

If the minister is actually in charge, she must show leadership. The poor performance from the minister in this matter cannot be overstated, and the discussion in committee demonstrated that.

To date, pursuing the bill has cost the taxpayer £30 million—money that has been wasted due to the incompetence of the minister and the SNP. Contrary to the minister’s assertions today and over the past few weeks, the bill does not deliver the Feeley recommendations—it has never touched on delivering them. The minister would not take advice on that. We have seen no commitment to do that or to progress anything with real urgency.

The Government simply does not listen. Not only has it wasted millions of pounds, but it has used up hours of parliamentary time. Most important, it has let down vulnerable and disabled people, as well as their unpaid carers and staff. Yesterday, eventually, in reply to my colleague Paul Sweeney at committee, the minister said that many of the recommendations in the Feeley review can be implemented without primary legislation.

My colleague Jackie Baillie has, over many months, and again today, outlined the legislative vehicles for fixing social care now. We could move forward on collective bargaining, on the essential Anne’s law and on the right to breaks, but what does the cabinet secretary do, and what does the minister do in committee? They talk. The Government talks; it does not deliver. Our communities would like to see action from this tired and out-of-touch Administration. For change to happen, the wheels need to be in motion now—in fact, they should have been in motion for the past few years.

The UK Labour Government budget has delivered £789 million of health-related consequentials this year and will deliver £1.72 billion for our NHS and social care next year. This Scottish Government must decide how it will deliver change in Scotland.

I will close on this point, Deputy Presiding Officer, as I know that we are tight for time. People’s care packages are being cut, delayed discharges are at a record high and staff are leaving in their droves. That is not about the UK budget, and it is not about the actions of another Parliament; it is about this Scottish Government in the here and now.

I would have liked to have said more, Deputy Presiding Officer. The reality is that we must work to get this right for the people in our communities, but it does not appear that this Scottish Government can deliver.

When the parliamentary session began back in 2021, there was a genuine enthusiasm about the prospect of a national care service. Only three years later, the enthusiasm is simply dead in the water. The conclusion of today’s debate can only be that the blame for that must lie solely at the feet of the Scottish Government. I wish that we could have heard a bit of reflection on the Government’s part.

My question is in a similar vein—it is about rural communities and the particular stigma there. We know that it can be more difficult to get specialist healthcare staff, so is work on-going in primary care in rural areas to make sure that our practitioners in those areas have the skills and competencies that they need?

Absolutely. I agree 100 per cent. The fault is square on that Thatcher Government. Poverty, deprivation and depopulation are still felt hard. It is incumbent on us to continue to remember the difficult choices that were made by those who felt that striking was their only option. Fortunately, unions and organisations such as the Coalfields Regeneration Trust continue to keep the issue front and centre.

Even when some Governments prefer to forget their responsibilities to their communities, the Coalfields Regeneration Trust and others bring it to the fore. The report “State of the Coalfields 2024” lays bare the truth, stating that Ayrshire coalfield communities stand out as “particularly deprived” areas.

The coalfield communities did not create those problems. Rather, they fell victim to the social and economic problems that we see across the United Kingdom because of such a right-wing Government. Unemployment, lack of investment and accepted decline by the state are the scars that my communities will suffer for generations to come. There was no contingency planning, no support and no sympathy. Those are the realities that miners faced.

We cannot praise the fight’s endurance without reflecting on the impact and support of women—predominantly the wives, sisters and daughters of the miners. They continued to support the miners, alongside community groups and trade unions, and they allowed the fight to continue for as long as it did. For that, I cherish the stories that have been recounted from women on the picket lines and in the communities.

I believe in those communities not only because of our history of mining and our part in empowering the country but because that history built a resilient people and bold communities, with warmth, talent and tenacity. It is they who deserve the wealth generated from the labour of their parents, grandparents and wider communities.

I close by demanding of the Governments of today: keep that fight for justice alive.

I accept what you say about the outcome that you are looking for. My question is, do you think that, at this point in time, you should be doing some of the things that can be done now quickly? Would that benefit the whole group that you have said you want to get outcomes for?

Thank you.

I have a question about the national social work agency, as stakeholders have approached many of us about it. I will then ask a more general question, if you do not mind.

Is it the intention to move forward with a national social work agency? I think that everyone agrees that we do not need legislation for that, but people are keen to know whether the agency would be just for social work or whether it would include the wider healthcare professional group.