 Felly, mae fawr yn ddechrau'r cyrraffydd yn ddechrau LHS. Felly, mae'n cymdeithasiau gyda'r berthynasau yma. Mae'n cymdeithio ar y ffacol arian 7-8-13 gameshonaeth. Felly, mae'n cymdeithasiau i gael bobl yn llwyddaeth. Felly, mae'n cymdeithasiau i gael amser cyflwm. Felly, mae'n cymdeithio i gael amser cymdeithiaeth. Felly, mae'n cymdeithio i gael amser. I'm very pleased to rise once again for the Lib Dems to speak in this afternoon's debate and move the motion in my name. Presiding officer, they care for the most vulnerable people in our society. They look after our nearest and dearest and even us when we are not able to and they are there when no one else is. But every day Scotland's hard-working social care staff are being let down and over 200,000 people work in social care in Scotland. They do so under immense strain and they've been underpaid and undervalued for years. I might note, Presiding Officer, that the cognitive dissonance of ministers who sought to delete the word crisis from our dentistry motion are now attempting to delete the line in this motion that relates to how our social care staff have been neglected. That is shameful because they have been neglected. 20 per cent of them are not on permanent contracts. Many are on zero-hours contracts whilst poor terms and conditions contribute to rising absence due to sickness and to burnout. Social care staff deserve better pay working conditions and they need that now. But instead of being rewarded for the vital work that they do, their efforts are being sacrificed on the altar of a billion-pound ministerial takeover of social care. It's no wonder that there is currently a vacancy rate of 47 per cent across the social care workforce. Of course, there are many reasons for that and I will pre-empt the minister by saying yes, of course, the impact of Brexit is part of that and the trauma faced by care staff during the pandemic among them. It's clear that the sector needs this Government support. Why then is it content to wait for the introduction of their so-called national care service to improve pay and develop collective bargaining? Those things could happen right now. The Government speaks often of the financial constraints that it's forced to work under, but what is utterly baffling and indefensible is that it continues to press ahead with its current plans for a ministerial takeover of social care, which is a vast and unnecessary bureaucracy ripping away control from local authorities with a huge and hefty price tag attached. Estimates from the Scottish Parliament's information centre said that it could cost as much as £1.3 billion over the next five years. John Mason? I take the point that he's making, but would he accept that, in the coming year, it's actually very little money that's been put into this and there is not enough money to increase pay substantially? John Mason's idea of £56 million is being very little money on a vast and unnecessary bureaucracy that nobody wants. I think that he says a lot about John Mason's priorities. I don't know about you, Presiding Officer, but in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis that is disproportionately impacting those on low-pay social care staff in large part amongst them, I can think of better ways to spend that money than waste it on that towering bureaucratic mess. Those plans will not address the problems in social care, they will only consume huge amounts of hour time, staff time and will actually cut the funds available for the delivery of that care. It's hard to imagine a worse idea for the sector than that. However, if the Government doesn't want to listen to me, they don't need to. They can listen to the finance committee, who said that it was, and I quote, difficult to access whether the Government's plans were affordable or sustainable, or COSLA, who said that for those in need of support, waiting four or five years for the establishment of the NCS is not an option, or they could listen to the health board bosses or trade unions or even their own backbenchers. Who could forget Michelle Thompson's comment when she said that she had no confidence whatsoever her words in the Government's plans and was, and I quote, completely surprised by the lack of detail in her Government's own financial memorandum. Presiding officer, there are numerous other organisations, I could say, all of them, say that the Government's proposals simply won't work and the Scottish Liberal Democrats agree with that. So too, it seems, to social care staff. A report by Unicent revealed that 71 per cent of them think that the Government's plans will have a negative impact on standards of care. That is for the people who work at the coal phase every single day. No one understands a system better than them, and this Government would do well to heed their warnings, and those warnings are alleged. 77 per cent of them said that Government's plans would lead to greater staff insecurity. They all agree that what is needed is more investment in staffing and resources, better pay and better conditions, not a towering, clunking bureaucracy. That's what the Scottish Liberal Democrats want to see. We want to reward staff with better paying conditions, as well as opportunities for career progression. We want to make this a profession of choice again, backed by the introduction of powerful collective national bargaining. That should begin this year, not on the Government's current glacial schedule. We also want to accelerate new national standards and entitlements for those who depend on our care service. It goes without saying, Presiding Officer, that we want the Government to abolish all its current plans for centralisation. That is because the Liberal Democrats fundamentally believe that people in Shetland, in Murray or Caithness are far better placed to understand the needs and profile of their communities than Scottish ministers or officials are. However, the Government is determined to conduct an unprecedented prerograb with the Delegated Powers Committee and I quote them, dangerous precedent and risks undermining the role of this Parliament. Presiding Officer, I would like to turn to delayed discharge. In recent months, we have heard a lot in this chamber about crippling waiting times in A and D. Those delays are not a deficiency of care in emergency departments. They are rooted in the problems in our social care sector. A and E is full of patients that can't be discharged into wider hospitals. Hospitals are full because, on any given night, more than 1,000 people are stuck well enough to go home but too frail to do so without a social care package. In November last year, over 58,000 days were spent in hospital by people who were clinically ready to be discharged. The Government promised to eradicate this back in 2015 and yet here we are. To conclude, Presiding Officer, it is clear that this Government lacks the necessary humility and the foresight to see and admit the mistake that it is making with its current proposals, which do not address the manifest problems in our social care sector. Our heroic social care staff and the thousands of people who rely on them deserve much better than this and they keep telling this Government exactly that. So let us send an unequivocal message to the Government this afternoon. Scrap your plans for a national care service, go back to the drawing board and thank you again. Thank you. I now call on Kevin Stewart to speak to and move amendment 7-813.3 up to six minutes, Minister. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I move the amendment in my name. I welcome this opportunity to once again set out the principles and ambitions for the national care service bill to this chamber. We have heard repeatedly from people with direct experience of social care and community healthcare that the system needs to change to address standards and consistency across Scotland. RIM, in delivering national care services, is to end the postcode lottery in care provision in Scotland and we look forward to continuing to work with service users to help design a new service with human rights at its heart. Has the Government decided whether children's services are going to be included yet? Minister. Mr Rennie knows the answer to that. We said that we would carry out more analysis in children's services, which we are doing at this moment in time. To establish a social care system that empowers people to thrive, not just survive, is our aim in all of this. The national care service will ensure consistency and fairness at a national level with services being designed and delivered locally. We are not just suggesting change to address the challenges of today. We must build a public service fit for tomorrow. Today, at least 232,000 or 125 people receive care support in Scotland. Demand will continue to grow and we need to recognise the risk of increased pressures on an already fragile system and we must act now. Carers, both paid and unpaid, continue to do remarkable work, providing critical and invaluable support to people across Scotland. I would like to take this opportunity to thank them all again for their efforts. The establishment of the national care service will ensure that our workforce is supported and rewarded. However, we are not waiting for the introduction of the national care service to bring in better conditions for our workforce. We are already increasing pay, improving terms and conditions in the sector and developing clear pathways all backed by fair work principles. The effects of Brexit and the cost of living crisis have had an impact on everyone in Scotland. That includes the social care workforce and unpaid carers. By working in collaboration with our partners, we want to see improvements in recruitment and retention, fair work and ethical commissioning. National pay bargaining will deliver more equitable terms and will ensure that all adult care staff will experience fair work in their employment. Rewarding and valuing the workforce will be key to delivering the best possible service for the people of Scotland, fit for the future and attractive to more people coming into the profession. Currently, the £10.50 hourly rate in Scotland is significantly higher than the national living wage rate, which will apply to many social care workers in England and Northern Ireland, with workers receiving £1 less per hour than in Scotland. We have a long-standing commitment to the principles of fair work for the social care sector, and we are fully committed to improving the experience of the social care workforce as we recognise and value the work that it does. From April this year, adult social care workers delivering direct care and commission services will see their pay increased to a minimum of £10.90 per hour. That is in line with the real living wage rate for £23.24 financial year. That £10.90 minimum rate represents an increase of 3.8 per cent from the £10.50 minimum rate that was introduced in April 2022 for adult social care workers delivering direct care and commission services. All of the rises represent a 14.7 per cent increase for those workers in the last two years, with pay rising from at least £9.50 per hour in April 2021 to £10.90 in April 2023. I am grateful to the minister. Can he advise the number of social care vacancies and whether it is rising or falling? We keep a very close eye on social work vacancies, and there are vacancies around the country. That is why we have a recruitment process going on at this moment, backed by the Scottish Government and backed by our resources. Financial sustainability is a principle set out in the bill. We need to ensure that we can deliver continuity and security of service for the people who access services. The Government has already committed itself to increase spend in social care by 25 per cent by the end of the Parliament to help lay the groundwork for the establishment of the national care service. Through plans for an ethical commissioning framework, we will ensure increased financial transparency, allowing us to prioritise quality of care and to better understand cost and profit across the mixed economy of providers. The focus of the national care service is to meet the needs of people. In doing so, it must strike the right balance between local flexibility and national consistency. That is why the national care service bill has provided for services to be planned and commissioned locally by care boards, whilst ministers are ultimately accountable. Local delivery will be vitally important, and we will promote local responsibility for the design and delivery of health and care support with and for our communities through the establishment of new local community health and care boards. The minister must conclude at this very second. The boards will be accountable not only to ministers, but to the people who use and support our services. I now call on Craig Hoy to speak to and move amendment 7813.2. Alex Cole-Hamilton gives us an opportunity to rehearse the arguments that we will use against the Government's ill-thought-out plans when we debate the national care service at the completion of stage 1. The SNP Government has been repeatedly warned of the risks posed by the sweeping, centralising and anti-democratic reforms. The SNP consults but does not listen. The SNP makes mistakes but does not learn. Albert Einstein once said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. If that is the case, the definition of ministerial arrogance is asking well-qualified professionals for their views over and over again and ignoring the responses. I honestly do not know what should worry us more about the SNP Government, its policy, insanity or its arrogance. Looking at Mr Stewart and Mr Yousaf today, I cannot work out which one of them is Laurel and which one of them is Hardy. However, having made a huge mess in our NHS, it is about to make a massive mess of Scotland's social care system. The people who will pay the price are those who work in social care and those who rely on social care. I pay tribute to those who work in the sector, they are overstretched and they are undervalued. They do essential work for vulnerable people in very difficult times. However, the pressures that they face are only going to set to grow as this Government allows itself to be distracted by the creation of a national care service. Just at the point where the system needs urgent attention, Nicola Sturgeon's Government proposes to waste £1.3 billion of essential resources on a massive structural reorganisation. Let's nail two myths. The Government is happy to let go uncorrected as it seeks to show up public support for this failed policy. Unlike our national health service, a national care service will not be free at the point of delivery. Many people will still lose their homes to pay for residential social care. Despite the impression given, the service will not be run at the front line by the Scottish Government. In fact, the private sector may have to take on more of a role as councils and third sector organisations hand back the keys to Scotland's care homes. The SNP could be the ones who further privatise social care in Scotland. The SNP and the Green Coalition are once again trying to rush through their inconceived legislation against the will of the third sector. Perhaps Mr Shure could tell us one third sector organisation who agrees with his plans. There are many third sector organisations that agree with our plans, and there are third sector organisations that think that other parts should be added to the national care service. I say to Mr Hoy that he says that nobody backs the national care service, but could I point out to the chamber that 72 per cent of people who responded to the survey, to the consultation, backed the national care service. Given that committees of this Parliament and the DPLR committee do not actually know what this bill means, how can people out in the countries know what the minister is actually proposing based on the survey, the questions of which were no doubt drafted to give the answers he wanted? John, just take my word. I don't want to be party political about this, and before the minister accuses me of being party political, let's look at some of the people on his own side who are against the SNP plans. The SNP led Aberdeen city council administration, the SNP led Dundee city council administration, the SNP led East Ayrshire council administration, the SNP council group in Renfrewshire, the SNP council group in East Renfrewshire, Michelle Thomson MSP, Kenneth Gibson MSP. Senior members of the SNP can see sense on this legislation, why can't these ministers? Ms Thomson has admitted to having no confidence whatsoever in the financial planning behind the proposed legislation. Audit Scotland also has concerns, and only last week the DPLR committee of this Parliament warned that this legislation sets a dangerous precedent by allowing Scottish ministers to use delegated powers to introduce as yet unknown core provisions to social care. Presiding Officer, what the DPLR sees is a paragraph, an SNP paragraph which removes parliamentary scrutiny of one of the biggest shake-ups of the public sector in the history of devolution. No, I won't give away, but the criticism goes way beyond this Parliament. Joanna Baxter, regional organiser and head of local government for Unison Scotland said, we cannot and we should not break up the local government workforce, particularly at this critical time in our recovery from the pandemic. Mr Hoy, I am going to have to ask you to conclude and to move the amendment in your name, please. Unite, the union responsible co-design of the workforce have also walked out on ministers. Government must listen. This government must listen. It must scrap the plan. Thank you, Mr Hoy. We are out of time. I move the amendment in my name. I now call on Paul O'Kee to speak to and move amendment 7813.1 up to four minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I thank the Liberal Democrats for bringing that debate to the chamber, and I am pleased to open on behalf of the Scottish Labour Party. The proposed national care service is one of the Government's self-proclaimed flagship policies in this parliamentary session. It is, of course, a concept that this party first suggested over a decade ago, but our vision was not the shambles that the Government is currently presiding over. The SNP has presented a hollowed-out unfunded method of a bill that is not worthy of the name of a national care service. As each week passes, the voices raising concerns about this bill continue to multiply. The coalition of care and support providers in Scotland have called for the bill to be paused because of what they describe as considerable work needed to make the legislation workable. COSLA, the umbrella body for Scotland's councils, has called for a pause due to insufficient funding and lack of clarity around key aspects of the bill, including the viability of local authorities. Unite the union has withdrawn from the co-design process due to losing confidence in the Government's approach, while Unison has described the bill as unfit for purpose and stated that it would be better withdrawn. Indeed, this Parliament's own committees, including the finance committee, the education committee and the local government committee, have raised significant concerns about the scope and structure of the proposed bill. Last week, the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee joined the chorus of voices calling for the bill to be paused. The minister said that he will listen to Parliament. Is message on the national care service bill becoming clearer by the day? I will take an intervention. I will listen to all, and we will reflect on what the committees of the Parliament have said and others have said. However, I will continue to listen to people, those 72 per cent that are in favour of a national care service, those people who are currently dealing with the postcode lottery. It is people that this is all about. They are the folk that we should be listening to as well. Paul O'Kane. I will come back to the minister's point, but I think that he's got some gall standing there while he's presided over a postcode lottery for 15 years. The message is clear. Pause the bill now and get back around the table, and our social care sector needs government action to deal with the immediate problems. Care workers cannot wait another three or four years for the promise of a national care service, which is not worth the paper that it's written on. That's why Scottish Labour have called for an immediate uplift of the wage of social care workers to £12 an hour, raising to £15 an hour, and delivering recommendations on the independent review into adult social care by scrapping non-residential care charges for those who are supported to live in their own home by social care workers. It is a manifesto pledge of this Government that it doesn't seem too keen on fulfilling any time soon. It is time that the minister and the cabinet secretary removed their heads from the sand and addressed the significant and growing concerns of front-line workers, trade unions, professional worries, local government, their own backbenchers, and before the minister gets his feet again to intervene, people with lived experience who are speaking to me and sharing their concerns about the shambles of a bill. The Government needs to get serious about addressing this crisis in social care, and it has to act now to give social care workers a meaningful pay rise and scrap those residential care charges. Addressing that crisis in social care will have a huge impact on the problems in our national health service. It is clear that having meaningful and real action on dealing with delayed discharge can change the game in terms of what is happening in our NHS. The Government needs to get serious about it. It is clear to me that we must put people at the heart of this national care service if it is going to work at all. Social care workers do not need warm words and platitudes from this Government. They do not need ministers who are happy to stand and clap for them in the pandemic. They need a real pay rise now. I move the amendment in my name. I think that it is fair to say that centralisation is never done with the interests of rural and island communities at its heart. Rarely is it possible to retrofit some provisions that may mitigate the impact on rural and island communities and, broadly speaking, they are part of the collateral damage. The Government has a track record of bringing forward many proposals in this area. Most recently, it plans to centralise air traffic control services across the Highlands and Islands. Before that, it attempts to abolish the board of Highlands and Islands Enterprise and merge the island health boards. In all three cases, thankfully, U-turns were performed. Unfortunately, we were not so fortunate in relation to police centralisation, but it is against that backdrop that these current plans are viewed in island communities. I think that it could credibly argue that the implications of this centralisation go much, much further than any of those I have just referenced. We have already heard of the opposition to the concerns raised by staff, unions, charities, third sectors, local authorities, auditors and legal experts. We have heard of the concerns raised by and within finance, DPLR and local government committees in the Parliament. We have a process for scrutinising legislation and that is what Parliament will and is confident to do. However, what I want to do in the limited time that I have available is to put on record some of the concerns specifically raised by key stakeholders who will be at the front line of trying to deliver whatever it is that emerges at the end of the process. Voluntary action Orkney, for example, talks about the concerns about a one-size-fits-all approach from the system. That is a particular concern to a small geographically scattered island population like Orkney, which has very specific needs and challenges. It is a theme that is picked up by NHS Orkney in its consultation response. It says that there is a risk of a loss of local accountability if this planning of services and commissioning of outcomes is done centrally. There are excellent examples of innovation, flexibility and integrated work in taking place in remote and rural communities and creating a third structure in those areas that are already struggling to manage two risks, duplication of bureaucracy and erosion of progress made throughout Covid. They go on to say that there is a risk of disengagement and disaggregation of joined-up working between primary and secondary care. There is a further risk of disengagement of a franchise workforce in remote and rural communities. They conclude by saying that the risk of implementing large-scale solutions in small-scale systems which creates unnecessary bureaucracy and diverts resources from the front line care. Again, the Orkney Joint Integration Board suggests that as a remote and rural island community we believe that the solutions to addressing the cultural and governance challenges of multi-agency working are most effectively found at a local level. As a small system serving a population of around 22,500, we fear that the creation of a new national body has the potential to further clutter the governance landscape and conclude that we believe that the majority of the proposals contained within the consultation could be achieved without structural change and by engaging with local services and addressing the funding deficit that has been recognised. None of this is new. Much of it reflects what we are healing in other parts of the world, but my concern is that the potential damage that those proposals could do in an island community like Orkney will be beyond what we see across the country as a whole. I would make the plea that has been made by others for the Government to stop, to pause those proposals, to give further consideration to the proposals being put forward by those stakeholders in Orkney and elsewhere, and to stop what appears to be a slow moving car crash. Thank you, Ms MacArthur. I now call Christine Grahame to be followed by Ross McCull up to four minutes, please, Ms Grahame. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Let me begin by agreeing wholeheartedly with the liberal motion right down to the words, quote, shortage is impacting the waiting times of those who require care packages, close quotes but no further. Clapping during the weeks and months, indeed, years of Covid, there was a growing recognition, I think, by all of us of the valuable dedication of those in the care sector as well as NHS. Code, I think, particularly through the spotlight, not only in the nature of care work, whether home visits or in care homes, but of the personal and selfless commitment of carers to those in their care. The Liberal Democrat motion highlighted the various levels of pain conditions. Of course, employment law is reserved to Westminster when it was here. However, the Scottish Government is aiming to deliver work in fair pay bargaining in the social care sector, and while employment law is reserved, it may be able to do this by placing fair pay conditions in a contract or funding dished out to the sector. I note what the minister has said regarding pay, but have Alex Cole-Hamilton and Paul Cain entered into discussions with the finance secretary regarding even more funding for the sector, which I would like as well, but they have to say how much and where it is to come from. Regarding the loss of staff, which does have a ripple effect through the care and health sector, it is well documented as being attributed in no inconsiderable manner to Brexit and now exacerbated by the UK criteria for immigration, which is not helpful. Indeed, Donald McCaskill, the CEO of Scottish carers, called the UK system quotes unmovable close quotes. The Lib Dems, of course, do not reference Brexit in their motion as they have now thrown in the towel and supported it. Not loss of staff means delays accessing a care package in hospital discharges, which in turn leads to delays in people having access to hospital beds and treatment. The Liberal Democrats were hurt in these delays, but neither a tribute in the least this to Brexit or indeed Covid. I would hope in summing up that the Liberal Democrats would at least recognise that. We turn to national standards across the sector and Covid, indeed pre-Covid, I was certainly aware not only searching the care inspectorate reports, but in constituency cases there was a huge variation and not always for the better. Thank goodness for the care inspectorate set up in 2011 taking over from the care commission. It beefed up, which will still be much needed, but we need a national standard of delivery and can sign the well-worn expression postcode lottery to the bin. To me, that is exactly the purpose of a national care service. It is not a duplicate of the national health service. Also what it is not is centralisation of delivery. It will have criteria set at a national level but delivery at a local level. I say that to Liam, as well as to people in the Borders. Of course it is different where you are in Scotland, but the standard must be at a certain level and not variable. I repeat, criterion standards are national level delivery local with local input to the needs of their area. As for career progression, I fully support that, but it is already available in transition of desire to the care sector to nursing. Indeed, Borders College and Gallus Shields have higher healthcare courses with health and social care national 5, higher FT, which can deliver both of these. I am happy to give Alec Cole-Hamilton contact details if he needs them. Finally, let me repeat my recognition of the dedication of all who work across the care sector, paid and unpaid, and wherever we are in this chamber, let's get it right for them and for those who they care for. I now call Rose McCall, to be followed by Carol Mawkin, up to four minutes. Thank you to the Liberal Democrats for bringing the debate to chamber. Scotland's social care system is being held together by the blood, sweat and tears of carers working for people that can't survive without them and I applaud them. When I was first approached about the care of my husband who would need when he came home, no one could give me the slightest idea just what that would mean, but questions needed answers. Discussions ranged from bathing him, to feeding him, to clothing him. Possible changes to the house included altering the sitting room to a bedroom and ripping out the shower for a sitting bath. Phone calls from therapists trying to find out what the next steps would be, but what struck me from the get-go was the questions on my current situation. What did I do for a living? Could I work from home? What experience did I have? Did I have health issues that would make it harder for me to care for my husband? Nervously asked questions, but nothing could mask the change of tone and the sound of relief that the shift to positivity when I explained that I was already working from home, that council elections were on the horizon and I didn't intend to stand again. My husband's finally coming home was entirely down to his hard work and family flexibility of care. I fully believe that his on-going progress has absolutely benefited from the comforting environment, familiar surroundings and the mental security that comes from his known space. Again, I stand here highlighting how lucky we are, but many are not so fortunate. As of the 30th of January, there were 473 patients in interim care placements within care homes. 473 people not experiencing that mental boost of confidence from being at home. 473 people dealing with life-altering health conditions and now dealing with a change in their everyday routine. Facing the unknown in an unfamiliar place filled with strangers, imagine the fear. I wonder how many people are in interim care placements in the minister's constituency. People affected by the SNP-Green Government's decisions, such as snatching back £331 million worth of Covid reserve funding, funding specifically set aside for social care that could have made a massive difference. I wonder how the minister can look at the people of Fife in the face when £21.5 million pounds were removed and drawn back from Fife's IJB. The Fife council area alone has had three separate residents waiting for more than 1,000 days for care packages to be implemented. One resident had to wake 1,385 days. That is three months short of four years, Deputy Presiding Officer. Another waited for 1,370 days. Wow, a whole 15 days less. And another waited for 1,067 days. Should they be grateful, Presiding Officer, that this took almost three years rather than four? We know that the care system needs urgent reform and we recently heard Dr MacAskill of Care Scotland pressing the argument that social care is community care, how it should be the primary source for healthcare in Scotland because good social care stops people being in hospital in the first place. It is essential that community-based social care is driven at a local level because that is the only way that the needs of the patients will be met. This Government's plans for a national care service simply will not be able to provide this crucial local element and we are going to be back here in years to come because the fundamental point has not been understood. Let's stop the folly of the national care service and focus on a local one. A local care service reworked and redesigned with local care workers at the heart of its changes. Care workers invested in shaping the programme that works for them so that they can keep working for the people who wouldn't survive without them. Thank you. Thank you, Ms McCall. I now call Karen Mocken, who is joining us remotely, to be followed by Gillian Mackay. Up to four minutes, please, Ms Mocken. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This is one of the most pressing issues that we face as a country and I am confronted with the consequences of failing to deal with it every time I visit a hospital or speak to local community groups in my region. I think that it may well be getting close to double figures the number of times I personally have spoken on this topic during this Parliament and yet we are no closer to a resolution. Like many who work daily in the sector, I am going frustrated with the Government's lack of meaningful action to address this problem. What you are failing to recognise as the Government so often do is that you cannot even begin to solve the crisis in the NHS without addressing the vast lack of care capacity. At the heart of that is an insistence on treating a care workforce better. They are treated like an afterthought and refusing to pay them enough to live on does not help. If that is not the number one in our priorities for this Government, we are really very far apart in our assessment of what is going wrong. As Scottish Labour have repeatedly said, we must immediately uplift social care pay to £12 an hour with a plan to increase it to £15, which will bring people into the role and, importantly, encourage those who have left to return. Equally removing non-residential care charges will help to begin to make care affordable for all across Scotland during and after an already burdensome cost of living crisis. This reform was recommended in the failure review and included in the Cabinet Secretary's party manifesto. Those are promises that you made to the public that are not being delivered and do not look like they will ever be. Surely you must do better. I reiterate that if we refuse to act on those recommendations, then we are not treating this problem with the seriousness that it deserves. I am not here to repeatedly make political points about the SNP greens that I have to make time and time again in the past, because this Government simply does not listen. I simply want to recognise that we have general agreement in the Chamber that the NHS is in crisis and that we want to do something about it. We want to make sure that recommendations can be put in place to alleviate the problem and that the impact can be felt immediately. Let's pause the bill. It is clear that the plans for a national care service are not worthy of the name and we need to complete a review of what the intent of the goals are here, because the bill is not working for those who need care and certainly will not work for those of the social care workforce. The public are beginning to see what this Government needs. The public are beginning to see that this Government needs to look at the national care service, it needs to actually act now, and sometimes it feels to the public that hollerood is not making decisions. Scottish Labour amendments would provide immediate help and start to bring people back to the caring provision that was previously given up on hoping for a fair pay deal. I implore this Government to take them seriously before it is too late to do so. In the interests of introducing some consensus this afternoon and having listened to the debate so far, I believe that we all want to achieve the same thing. Better outcomes for those receiving social care and better terms and conditions for those working in social care, as well as better support for carers. Sometimes in this policy area and others, although we will rightly have the discussion about who should deliver this, we do not amplify the stories of why reform is important. There are parts of the national care service work that I do not think that we would have any argument with each other about. We all know of the issues that the ban on care home visiting had during the pandemic. Those practices were in place before the pandemic in relation to outbreaks of various viral infections, but their negative impact became more apparent as Covid dragged on. We should thank the families who have campaigned on this for using their stories so powerfully and often having to relive trauma for the betterment of other people's experiences. I know that some of those issues in care homes are on-going, and I would encourage anyone in this situation to get in contact with their MSPs. We have discussed exactly this bill or issues related to this bill many times in the chamber recently, and I wanted to cover one that we have not heard so much about through this process, and that is young carers. I think that, as the carers trust have reflected, that is because of the size and technicality of the bill and the impact and engaging in such a vast process could have on those who have that caring role. That is something that we need to reflect on when talking about co-design and making sure that the input from young carers is targeted and sustainable. The carers trust have undertaken some work with young carers as part of their response to the bill to highlight why the bill is so important to them. The majority of young people that the carers trust spoke to were in favour of a national care service. The issue of breaks was one that was hugely important to them, and I want to take the opportunity to use some of the quotes that were included in their response. One said, I want to spend more time one-to-one with my mum and dad. I don't feel confident enough to go with people I don't know. I want my breaks to be with my own friends and family and with people I choose. If my mum and dad got more help from my sister, then this would help me too. Another said, for a lot of young carers, a break away is not just physical but a mental break. We don't need to worry in the back of our minds about the person that we care for. Even if attending a hub, there is not necessarily a mental break. It helps for us to know that the cared for person is safe and being looked after by someone. We have heard from carers that the mental break described in those quotes is one of the most difficult things to provide. Carers are often so focused on how to get everything done and what the next thing to do is that they can find it difficult to switch off even when they have time for them. Many, due to their caring roles, we know and we've heard from some have become more socially isolated especially over the pandemic, when many saw the number of hours of care they provide or the complexity of that care increase. This will have resulted in losing touch with friends or not having time for the hobbies that they once loved. There is also the impact of the cost of living crisis and what that means for being able to survive, let alone have expendable income for a hobby and we need to work to ensure that what we bring in in terms of breaks fits and supports carers. We need to make sure that for those who need it there is support to find comfort and enjoyment from their breaks. Support for particularly young adult carers I think needs better defined too. We hear of many feeling that their support just stops after they move on from school. For some I've spoken to, this just doesn't feel right as many go on to college or university and really their day to day life hasn't changed a lot other than getting their education somewhere else often further from home. Some issues that affect young carers we can address through the NCS bill but for many there are other issues to address and I think we need to continue to keep this in mind for all groups as the bill progresses. I now call John Mason who will be the last speaker in the open debate before I move to closing speeches. Mr Mason up to four minutes please. I think most people would agree that having more consistency and more resources in our care services is highly desirable and any disagreement is more about how we put that into practice but I do think there is a certain inconsistency in the Lib Dem motion today. On the one hand they call for powerful national bargaining but on the other hand abolition of plans for a national care service. Well something there does not add up either we continue with current localised and some would say fragmented system or we move to a more national system with consistent pay. Now I fully accept that a national system very quickly I'll take Mr Cole-Hamilton. I'm very grateful to Mr Mason for giving way. Mr Mason will have heard speeches from the government benches all afternoon talking about the panoply of things that a national care service will do. Nothing relating just to pay bargaining and can he recognise that these two can be disaggregated you can do them in isolation and indeed we should do them in isolation. John Mason. I don't think you can do them in complete isolation no. Now I fully accept that a national system can be done in different ways for example schools are run by local authorities but paying conditions are determined at a national level. On the other hand the NHS has regional boards whereas again police and fire are national organisations so there are different models that can be used. I'm not taking any more sorry it would not be a secret to say that the finance committee would have liked more detail on all of this before we were asked to comment on the financial memorandum for the NCS bill however the positive side to the current plan is that all options are still on the table councils could still be the main players in the care service after all the NHS consists of quite a mixture hospitals and secondary care are fully in the public sector whereas GPs dentists and opticians are usually independent organisations so the new NCS could potentially be that kind of mixture as well. From a personal perspective I used to work for a private company running nursing homes and other care facilities on the other hand my mother spent the last two years of her life in an excellent third sector care home run by Abbeyfield so I can see advantages in continuing to have a mixed model with a wide variety of care providers. One of the criticisms by private and third sector providers has long been that councils provide hidden subsidies to their own care facilities for example in how they treat capital costs so there are advantages in having a level playing field with any charges consistent across the country and it's only if such charges are at a realistic level that any provider can actually afford to pay better wages. My own view is that we cannot afford to make all care completely free given the state of the country's finances. If people are well enough off I see no reason why they cannot pay part of the accommodation or other costs as they do at present. Another key factor is occupancy. Whoever a care home provider is they cannot make the figure stack up if there are empty beds overheads are huge and there needs to be a commitment to use care home beds rather than leaving potential residents either blocking beds in hospitals or lonely and isolated at home. As far as council involvement and provision is concerned Glasgow for one has invested heavily in modern quality facilities. I think there are five across the city and in my own Shettleston constituency we have the Riverside care home which was part of the Commonwealth Games village built for 2014. It is highly regarded good quality facility and is certainly night and day compared to care homes in the past which often used converted but unsuitable old mansion houses. Glasgow City Council appears to be running that facility very well so I would see no need to change that. I certainly hope that councils will have a central role in any new NCS. If I could just mention the Conservative amendment and their proposal for a local care guarantee what does that actually mean in practice? It seems to mean that there has to be limitless money, limitless staff numbers, limitless care home places and I do not see that as possible in matters. We will now move to closing speeches and I call on Jackie Baillie to wind up on behalf of Scottish Labour up to four minutes please Ms Baillie. Thank you very much. Members across the chamber have described the crisis in social care and I too want to thank the Lib Dems for using debating time to give us the opportunity to do so. What is increasingly clear is that until we fix the crisis in social care pay we will not address the problems in the sector. Vacancies are spiralling as social care workers move to jobs in retail and hospitality where they get paid more and have less responsibility. The minister failed to answer my question. Vacancies are increasing, serious concerns are being raised about whether services are sustainable and the safety of those receiving care is at risk. That is why Scottish Labour is committed to paying care workers a fair wage of an immediate £12 per hour, rising to £15 per hour in discussion with employers and trade unions. We have already set out where the money for £12 per hour could be found, almost double the £150 million that it would cost to implement. There is no barrier to the SNP doing so. It is a matter of political will, I suggest you listen. As recommended in the feeling review, Scottish Labour would also remove non-residential care charges to provide financial relief during a cost of living crisis for those who need it most. It was in the SNP's manifesto that they have ignored it since. The SNP's record on social care is frankly abysmal. They have presided over cuts in care packages, insufficient respite and support for unpaid carers and a recruitment crisis that threatens the safety of residents. That needs to be tackled now, not left to the SNP's proposed national care service that likes vision and detail and is about changing structure and is simply not about culture. Scottish Labour has campaigned for over a decade for the creation of a national care service that prioritises raising quality standards, delivering national funding and retaining local delivery to ensure that local expertise, accountability and community input are retained, all largely absent from the current bill. Trade unions and organisations across the social care sector have come together asking the SNP to pause or even scrap the national care service bill. They join the four parliamentary committees that have expressed serious concerns. There is nothing at all in the bill about national collective bargaining. Last week, Unite the Union pulled out of the co-design process for the national care service with concerns that 70,000 workers could be transferred without any protection for pensions. The GMB has said that, although there is plenty of information in the bill around new executive boards, their pay and pensions, there is no mention of the same for care workers and no mention of whether the body will need to pay 20 per cent VAT. Imagine the centralising tendencies of the SNP resulting in millions of pounds being taken away from care and no financial memorandum for the bill until after stage 3 of the budget, a wholly unsatisfactory state of affairs. In any case, a national care service will not be in place until at least 2026, but you know the crisis is happening now. Last month, Scottish Labour held a round table for the social care sector to hear about their concerns and priorities. Around the table, people were unanimous. They wanted parity of esteem between health and social care. Their message was clear. Until we fix a crisis in pay, we cannot deal with a crisis in health and social care. The Government must listen before it is too late. Stop pushing the blame on to others. This is your responsibility. Give social care workers the pay uplift that they deserve and non-residential care charges as pledged in your manifesto. Finally, pause the national care service bill. We are looking over a precipice. Unless the SNP gets a grip quickly, social care will be diminished and will struggle to continue to provide the quality of care that our older people and disabled people rightly deserve. Support the Labour amendment and reject the complacency of the SNP. I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate today. Whatever their views, it has highlighted the value of care and carers and just how diverse the sector and the options within the sector are. People in need do not fit a formula. You cannot have one size fits all in care. We have heard some excellent speeches, but the one that really struck me was from Rose McCall. I do not just say that because she sat next to me, but she told us powerfully about her own experiences and the questions she was asked while dealing with the care system. I want to focus on what many speakers have spoken about at the national care service bill. It was dissected very powerfully by Alex Cole Hamilton initially and then Craig Hoy. I cannot think of a bill that has been so derided and that has received the criticism that it has from committees in a Parliament where the Government wins every vote. That is good. It shows that committees have been doing their job, but it should make the minister think again that so far he has not been told to. I am going to go through what some of those committees have said. We will start with the Education, Children and Young People Committee. They conclude that improvements must be made to the bill. At present, there is insufficient information and a lack of detail in the financial memorandum to reassure the committee that the implications of the bill for children's services, regardless of whether they are in or out of the national care service, have been properly costed. The committee shares concerns of the robustness of the overall costs of the bill, as outlined in the financial memorandum, and it would not be content to wait until any secondary legislation was laid for further detail. The committee cannot form a clear view on whether children and young people services should be included under any future national care service. Indeed, Kevin Stewart could not even tell us earlier. He could not even tell us if it would be included. That is just not acceptable. What about the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee? A very technical committee. The former members include myself and Mr Hoy. We do not normally get too exercised about things, but this committee said that the committee does not believe that the bill should progress in its current form. The committee is concerned that there is insufficient detail on the face of the bill and within the bill documents to allow for meaningful parliamentary scrutiny. What a disgrace! It goes on. Given the far-reaching nature of the proposed reforms, the committee is mindful that there is a real risk of letting down those that the bill is intended to help by allowing Scottish Government ministers to use delegated powers instead of primary legislation to introduce core and as yet unknown provisions, shocking. Of course, we heard from the Finance and Public Admin Committee about their significant concerns as well. There are three committees all attacking the bill. The minister needs to take heed of those committees. He should listen. He is not listening, and it is about time that he did and scrapped this bill immediately. Thank you, Mr Simpson. I call on Kevin Stewart, minister, to wind up on behalf of the Scottish Government up to five minutes, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. The ultimate establishment of a national care service will be the most ambitious reform of public services in Scotland since devolution. It will end that postcode lottery of care provision, ensuring quality, fairness and consistency of provision that meets individual needs. We know that a new national care service could not exist without the dedication and commitment of those who deliver care and support services, and a key objective will be supporting and valuing our unique workforce. We will not wait until the national care service to do that, but we have to have a little bit of honesty in this debate. It was pointed out by Christine Grahame how much does this cost and where does it come from. That is the key question in all of this. We have heard today about increases in pay—I will give way in a little while to Mr Rowley. We have heard about increases in pay today. The Liberal Democrats in their motion talked about increases in pay, but their colleagues south of the border have called for a £10.42 per hour from April 2023. That is less than we are paying social care workers here in Scotland at this moment. We heard from Ms Bailey and from other members in the Labour benches that to increase to £12 now would cost £150 million. However, as Scottish Labour are aware, the £150 million figure is based on estimates using UK-wide ash data. That is not based on how this policy is delivered to those workers in practice here in Scotland, which includes funding to support differentials and all relevant on-costs. The true cost of delivering £12 per hour now would cost some £300 million. If Ms Bailey wants to talk to the finance secretary about how we can move that money to find that now, I am sure that Mr Swinney will be willing to listen. If we are going to come to the chamber, we should follow that principle of Christine Grahame. Where is it coming from? We should give the true figures of how much that will cost. We cannot continue to deliver social care support services through the current system. The extent of the pressures that we are currently experiencing is evidence of that. We have repeatedly heard from people that changes need it. With that context, it is no longer good enough for people in this chamber to simply say stop. There is a responsibility on all of us to bring forward viable, affordable models that will deliver better public services for people. I will give it to Mr Simpson. I thank Mr Stewart for taking the intervention. One of the main criticisms from committees is that there is a complete lack of detail on the face of this bill. How does he respond to that? We have been open and transparent about how we would deal with that in terms of co-designing with people how we move forward. That will rid us of the implementation gaps. People should be at the heart of all that we are doing here. We have folk working in lived experience panels and stakeholder groups who are helping us to design a system that is fit for the future. I would like to turn to some of the other questions and comments that were made in the debate. I will turn to Ms McCall, who talked about the situation in my constituency. I have to say that in my constituency, the delayed discharge in my own city is much lower than in many other places. I can tell the chamber why, because the granite care consortium has flexibility in terms of the contract that it had from the health and social care partnership. That means that front-line staff can step up and step down care as they see fit, and that helps in reducing delayed discharge. That is something that I want to see right across the country, and that is why ethical procurement is the way forward in all of this, and then others can follow the example of Aberdeen and the likes of Fife. I will give way to Mr Rowley. I said a word, sorry. I am grateful to the minister for giving way. I have met many care-at-home companies across Mid Scotland in Fife, and they all say to me that the contracts that they currently have do not allow for them to pay better wages or improve the poor terms and conditions. Do you accept that the major issue in terms of recruitment and retentionary staff at care-at-home is the poor pay, poor terms and conditions? We have already recognised that their pay must be better. That is why we have had three pay rises in the past two years, and we know that we have to go further. It is why we are co-operating with COSLA at this moment in terms of expanding on the conditions. I think that, like Mr Rowley, because we have spoken about that before, it is absolutely wrong that folk do not have access to maternity pay or sick pay. In some cases, we will change that in the very near future without national care service. Mr Rowley is right about some of the contracts. That is why ethical procurement is at the heart of all that we are doing here. The national care service will not be free at the point of use. Care homes will still charge millions of pounds to users. The national care service will not be run by the state. Many of the providers will be private. The national care service is uncosted, ill-defined and half-baked. To equate the proposed national care service with the national health service is an insult to all those nurses, doctors and staff who have worked in the NHS since its inception. The whole project is a charade dressed up as a revolution. The SNP are no founder of a great new future. They are nothing like those who built the NHS following the Second World War. Kevin Stewart is no William Beverage, and he is certainly no Nye Bevan. Kevin Bevan perhaps, but not Nye Bevan. We should be able to agree that the social care service is in crisis. Jackie Baillie is right. It is in crisis now, and it cannot wait until 2026 for an answer from this Government. Thousands of people are stuck in hospital every day, interim beds or waiting at home for a care package. There is an exodus of staff from the sector, from jobs, for places such as Aldi's supermarkets, who pay staff more for packing shelves than you do for paying staff in the care homes and in the social care sector. Staff vacancies are sky high. Alex Cole-Hamilton referred to a 47 per cent vacancy rate. The effect backs up into hospital wards, into A&E and ambulances, because patients have nowhere else to go. The SNP grasped on to Brexit like Christine Grahame did. Yes, Brexit, of course, has contributed, but the only point to Brexit is to ignore the failings of this Government for years upon end, because this has been building for years. Staff have been taken for granted for years. They have been underpaid for years by this Government. For the Minister to say that we are better than the Conservatives in England, to set such a low bar on the ambition for the care service in Scotland, the dizzy heights of a Conservative bar. The Minister also said that the proposals to increase pay for social care staff would cost £300 million or so, or perhaps the equivalent of one ferry. You never know. However, staff are now scunnerd. They did their bit during the pandemic, they are knackered and they are exhausted. Gillian Mackay rightly talked about young carers, but nothing of what she said was guaranteed with a national care service. Absolutely nothing. It is the ambition, but it is not guaranteed. It is as much possible just now under the current system as it would be under a future system. The national care service abandons any notion of integration. At present, integrated joint boards and health and social care partnerships attempt to combine the work of health and social care into one organisation at a local level, but this plan abandons all of that. It rips up those local partnerships and creates a new national care service. Mr Rennie, if I could just ask you to stop for a moment, I am aware of numerous conversations taking place in the chamber. Can we please give Mr Rennie the respect of listening to his contribution? The minister could not tell me earlier on whether children's services will be in or out. They are driving through the bill, through Parliament, but still dither as to whether children's services will be in or out. They commissioned the Feely report without even asking for children's services to be considered. The Government is making that up as it goes along, but it is still worse than that because children are an afterthought. Although they are ripping adult services into a national care service, children's services will have to make a decision. Will they stay local and integrate with education and other local services, or will they go with adult services on a national basis? They will have to make a choice, go with education or go with adults. Either way, children's services will lose out. The First Minister has repeatedly said that she wants Scotland to be the best place for children to grow up. That is not the case any longer with this national care service. Paul O'Kane rightly identified that trade unions and charities are pulling out of co-operation with the bill. It has also got very few friends. In the education committee, despite numerous witnesses coming before the committee, we could not find anybody who is enthusiastic about the bill. The committee could not bring itself to endorse the proposal. The Delegated Powers Committee condemned the plans, and the Finance Committee led by the very highly respected convener, Kenny MacAskill, unanimously criticised the bill for poor... Yeah, we dream of Kenny MacAskill. We wish he was only back, didn't we? But Kerry Gibson, yet Kevin Stewart still plows on. But Kevin Stewart hasn't learnt the lessons also of the centralisation of the police. Kenny MacAskill was funnily regarded in this Parliament for driving through those changes. But what it ignored at that point was that it lost all local accountability. In fact, devastatingly, it cost lives. It cost lives. That is what we are dealing with here. We need to consider what the impact will be on ordinary people. Ross McCall was quite right when she highlighted the personal circumstances that she has endured. That is what we should all remember. We deserve to create a care service that is fitting for people who need those services, not for some national political ambition. Thank you. That concludes the debate on investing in the future of social care. It is now time to move on to the next item of business, which is consideration of business motion 7.836, in the name of George Adam, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau, setting out a business programme. I call on George Adam to move the motion. No member has asked to speak on the motion. Therefore, the question is that motion 7.836 be agreed. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 7.837, in the name of George Adam, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau, on timetabling of a bill at stage 1. Any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press their request to speak button now. I call on George Adam to move the motion. No member has asked to speak against the motion. Therefore, the question is that motion 7.837 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. The motion is therefore agreed. The next item of business is consideration of 7 parliamentary bureau motions. I ask George Adam on behalf of the parliamentary bureau to move motions 7.838 to 7.842 on approval of SSIs, 7.843 on committee meeting time and 7.844 on recess dates. Every one of them moved, Presiding Officer. The question on those motions will be put at decision time. And there are nine questions to be put as a result of today's business. And can I remind members that if the amendment in the name of Marie Todd is agreed to, the amendment in the name of Paul Sweeney will fall. And the first question is that amendment 7.812.3, in the name of Marie Todd, which seeks to amend motion 7.812, in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton, on addressing the crisis in NHS dentistry, be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, therefore we will move to a vote and there will be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system.