National Care Service (Scotland) Bill
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to council leaders withdrawing support for its National Care Service (Scotland) Bill. (S6T-02122)
The national care service is about improving lives and ending the inconsistency of care provision across Scotland. Reform is needed; Derek Feeley’s recommendations were clear. The thousands of people we have spoken to who receive or provide care agree, so it is disappointing that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has taken that step. We have worked extensively with it on its concerns for almost two years and made a series of substantial changes at its request.
Uppermost in our minds—and, I am sure, in COSLA’s mind—are the needs of the people who rely on care services. In that spirit, we will continue to work with individual councils and, where it is willing, COSLA on these matters, as well as with colleagues across the chamber. In the meantime, we will continue to work to invest in and improve social care services in Scotland.
The bill does not resemble the recommendations of the Feeley review. The truth is that the withdrawal of COSLA follows the withdrawal of all three social care trade unions—the GMB, Unite and Unison—and comes in the face of criticism from national health service chief executives and board chairs, and clear disappointment from the third sector as to the lack of vision. The substance of the bill is to create another quango that is not expected to be established until 2028 or 2029. It does nothing to improve social care now. Does the cabinet secretary agree with his predecessor and former employer Alex Neil that this is a “nonsensical bill”, and will he pause stage 2 to take the time to get it right?
The first area that Jackie Baillie covered was the recommendations of the Feeley review. The reason why there has been a departure from that is because of the work that we have done with COSLA to find a compromise position that would allow us to move forward, which is why I say that I am more than a little disappointed that we arrived at the position that we arrived at on Friday. We reached agreement on the vast majority of issues, which were worked through on a tripartite basis, in order to make progress. We all agree that there needs to be reform, but it is what that reform looks like that will be important. That is why I am committed to still maintaining dialogue not just with local authority leaders but with colleagues across Parliament.
Some elements of the stage 2 amendments—the amendments around children’s and justice services, direct funding and the removal of board members—were paused at the request of COSLA. Those discussions have not started up again. I am more than disappointed that COSLA arrived at that position on Friday before concluding those discussions.
There is no doubt that the cabinet secretary would want to talk to COSLA, but I do not think that he has been listening to it. The Scottish Government has revealed that it is spending almost £1 million a month on civil servants working on the bill. More than £2 million has been spent on private sector consultants. The cost to date has been well over £10 million, and all that we have to show is botched legislation that very few people support and which will not make a difference to social care now.
At the same time, care packages are being cut, direct payments are being slashed, services are being removed and staff are leaving. Councillor Chris Cunningham has appealed to the Scottish National Party Government for help to fill the £112 million black hole in the health and social care budget for Glasgow. That is the story in health and social care partnerships across Scotland. What will the cabinet secretary do to help social care right now, before it runs into more difficulty?
There are a number of areas to cover in Jackie Baillie’s question. On the first, regarding our interactions with COSLA, we have agreed that local government would retain existing statutory responsibility, staff, assets and functions, so there would be no removal of functions from local authorities.
We have also agreed to reform the existing integration joint boards instead of introducing new local care boards. The proposed new national care service board is a partnership, and we agreed with local government that it would be part of that partnership, and not subordinate. It is not a ministerial board, but a joint board.
We have been listening to COSLA and we have acted on its asks, including on pausing those elements of the bill on which we have still to reach agreement. That is why Friday’s decision was pre-emptive, because we still have areas to conclude.
With regard to what we are doing now, Jackie Baillie is right that the bill is about how we improve the current social care experience both for those who work in it and for those who receive services. We have achieved our target of increasing social care spending two years early, and we will continue to work with partnerships on improving the picture with regard to delayed discharge and other areas, as we have been doing over the summer, so that there is discernible progress and improvement for the people who need and expect our services to reform and improve.
There is broad agreement that there is a need for reform in social care to ensure that there are consistent standards across the country. It is very disappointing, therefore, that, after a considerable period of hard work to reach consensus, some people now appear to be playing politics and are refusing to work together. Will the cabinet secretary join me in calling on everyone who is involved to get back around the table and work together so that we can deliver the vital reforms to social care and community health that we all know are needed in order to meet the current and future needs of people across Scotland?
Yes, I will. I reiterate that the intention for a national care service, and for the bill, is about improving people’s lives and the quality of care—it is not about party politics. It is crucial that we continue to ensure that the people who use or work in social care, social work or community healthcare services are at the heart of our reforms. They have told us time and again that the system needs fundamental and sustainable change, and many stakeholders remain committed to working together for the people whom they serve. For example, this morning, the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee heard from NHS leaders, who reiterated their willingness to achieve those aims. We will continue to work with individual councils, and the door is open should COSLA wish to engage, too.
Despite councils withdrawing support and NHS chief executives blasting the SNP’s proposals, the Government continues to push forwards with its unpopular and unworkable plan for a centralised care service. A total of £28.7 million has already been spent in the current session of Parliament on work relating to the national care service. As we have heard, the care sector is on its knees. When will the cabinet secretary commit to directing future funding to improve social care now, instead of continuing with this disastrous policy?
We are doing that already; we have met our target two years early for increasing our investment in social care, so delivering on that ask from Tess White is already under way.
With regard to where NHS chief executive and chairs are, Tess White will have heard them say this morning, at the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, that they agree with the premise of a national care service and with the direction of travel and the aims that we are attempting to achieve. We will work with anybody who is looking to take forward the national care service in a way that ensures that we improve the situation for those who are in receipt of social care and, critically, for those who work within it, because we need to improve the standards and provide greater consistency for both those groups.
The cabinet secretary just said that the Government has increased investment in social care. In Fife, this week, they are cutting support for respite care in half and cutting care packages by £5 million, so they are reducing, not increasing, expenditure. Meanwhile, the cabinet secretary’s bill, which is supposed to solve all the issues in 2028, is losing supporters by the day.
When will the cabinet secretary understand that the bill is not the answer? He needs to focus on the fundamentals of social care in a way that is designed to help vulnerable people and the NHS. That, not the bill, is what we need.
With respect to Willie Rennie, I think that those who are in receipt of social care would disagree with him. Many who have provided evidence on the bill say that it is the way forward to provide consistency, both for those in receipt of social care and for those who work with them. It is a fact that we have increased investment in social care—that is there for all to see.
I am conscious of the decisions that are being made in partnerships across the country. During the summer, we engaged to try to ensure that social care is prioritised in order to improve the situation on delayed discharge. Unfortunately, some decisions are making that more difficult.
Heating (Affordability for Pensioners)
To ask the Scottish Government how it will ensure that pensioners can afford to heat their homes this winter. (S6T-02121)
Pension age winter heating payment will support older people on relevant benefits to help to meet heating costs this winter. Winter heating payment guarantees a reliable annual payment of £58.75, which is available only in Scotland, to people on low incomes, including older people. Our energy efficiency programmes, warmer homes Scotland and area-based schemes provide vital support to households in or at risk of fuel poverty.
This year alone, we are spending £134 million to mitigate United Kingdom Government policies through schemes such as discretionary housing payments and the Scottish welfare fund, thereby providing vital support to households that are struggling to meet housing and energy costs.
New research has revealed that rural households endure more cold weather than any other part of Scotland. However, the winter heating payment to which the cabinet secretary referred was previously assessed in Scotland—and still is assessed in the rest of the UK—using data from the nearest weather station. In 2020, it was worth £150 in Aboyne, £175 in Braemar and £150 in Aviemore. This year, as we heard, the Scottish Government has capped it at a flat rate of £58.75.
Why did the Scottish Government choose to centralise that and ignore local weather data? Will the Government consider reverting to a fairer system, based on local weather conditions, to bring the people of rural Scotland back in from the cold?
Mr Kerr will be cognisant of the consultation that was undergone at the time.
I point Mr Kerr to the facts when it comes to what happened in the past and contrast that with the current situation with the winter heating payment. Forecasts indicate that we will invest £24.4 million this winter for winter heating payment. That is nearly tripling the £8.5 million that the Department for Work and Pensions provided on average in each of the past seven years, prior to the introduction of the new winter heating payment.
Mr Kerr fails to recognise that the Scottish Government’s decisions will guarantee people support this year, which will be more than welcome, given other announcements by the UK Government. It is very important that that reassurance and guaranteed payment are there.
The demonstrable difference that the payment will make is clear, given that our investment is much more than that of the DWP. We are investing more in social security, because it is an investment in our people.
That will be cold comfort to those in the north-east who are losing more than £100 this year. In other areas throughout Scotland, many pensioners will be faced with the end of the winter fuel payment, which is at the choice of the Scottish Government. The cost of maintaining it would be £140 million. The Scottish Government could have chosen to fund that by using some of the £2 billion projected cost of the national care service, but it chooses not to. Why does the Scottish National Party choose to fund pet projects rather than to help pensioners who are freezing in their homes this winter?
I hope that Mr Kerr was listening to the answers that my colleague Neil Gray gave to the earlier question. The national care service is about providing better services for people here in Scotland. I do not recognise the figures that he cited in his question.
Mr Kerr also chooses to ignore the fact that the UK Government’s decision took £150 million out of the budget this year—not over the coming years, but out of this year—and £150 million will be taken out next year and on and on and on. I am sick and tired of the hypocrisy from Opposition members who think that the Scottish Government’s purpose is to mitigate the UK Government’s bad choices.
During the UK election campaign, Labour promised to cut fuel bills. Instead, energy bills are increasing by 10 per cent, and it has withdrawn the winter fuel payment from millions of pensioners, a move that was rejected by its party membership. Does the cabinet secretary agree with me that Labour’s broken promises are shameful? Will she give me more detail on the Scottish Government’s work with energy firms to deliver a social tariff?
Collette Stevenson is quite right to point out to members and to people across the country the difference that Labour is making. Labour promised to cut fuel bills but, this very day, people are seeing that their fuel bills will go up this winter. I am not sure that that is the change that people had in mind.
Given the circumstances that we face, the Scottish Government not only is looking to see what can be done with the powers and resources that we have but is keen to work with energy providers. Collette Stevenson mentioned a very important example of such work. A social tariff would provide affordable energy bills and should be automatically applied for those who are most in need, but we need the UK Government to work with us and energy companies on that. In the meantime, we are establishing a working group to work with energy companies to demonstrate the viability of a social tariff, and I hope that the UK Government will commit to taking that forward.
Will the cabinet secretary explain why, prior to the UK election, the Scottish Government chose to cut the fuel insecurity fund for households and repeatedly cut energy efficiency budgets, resulting in two thirds of houses in Scotland falling below the recommended energy efficiency standards? It would also be useful for people to understand why her SNP colleagues in Westminster failed to vote for the Great British Energy Bill, which will deliver lower energy bills in the longer term and provide investment to make the change that we so badly need.
I call the cabinet secretary to respond on matters for which the Scottish Government has responsibility.
As the First Minister said last week, we are keen to work with GB energy, but let us be clear that GB energy will not cut household bills this winter or, indeed, next winter. The project is for the mid to long term, but we are keen to work with GB energy on it.
Mr O’Kane has chosen to ignore our investment for older people, including the winter heating payment; the council tax reduction scheme; free bus travel for anyone aged over 60; support for older people’s organisations; advice services that help people to get what they are entitled to; the warmer homes Scotland and area-based initiatives; and the islands cost crisis emergency fund. We are doing what we can to support not only pensioners but people who are suffering from fuel poverty. It is just a shame that one of the Governments that is responsible for Scotland is making that harder by putting people into poverty this winter rather than lifting them out of it.
Labour’s decision to cut the winter fuel payment for many pensioners will have a disproportionate impact on older people in Scotland, because temperatures in Scotland are significantly different from those in areas south of the border. For example, on Monday, the temperature was 10°C in Wanlockhead and 16°C in London. The cut will hit older people in rural areas, some of whom rely on oil-fuelled heating—30 per cent of homes in Dumfries and Galloway use such heating. Does the cabinet secretary agree that the cut should be reversed? Will she comment further on the action that the Scottish Government is taking to support older people this winter?
In my previous answers, I have mentioned the support that we continue to give to older people, despite the budget cuts that seem to be coming our way.
Emma Harper is quite right to point out that Labour can still reverse its decision on the winter fuel payment. That opportunity still lies in its hands. That is why, following the publication of the UK Government’s winter fuel payment equality analysis, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to call on her to reinstate the winter fuel payment for all pensioners. That would be the right thing to do. If she does not listen to me or, indeed, the wider chamber, I hope that she will listen to pensioners up and down the country, whom we will continue to support as they face a very difficult winter.
How many Scottish pensioners are now excluded from receiving the winter fuel payment in 2024-25? What assurances has the Scottish Government had from the UK Government that a mass-media pension-credit claim campaign will increase uptake for eligible claimants, before the 21 December pension credit cut-off date, to enable them to qualify for a winter fuel payment?
Scottish Government analysis suggests that between 110,000 and 130,000 pensioners will remain eligible for payment in Scotland this winter, representing a reduction of around 900,000 pensioners who will no longer be entitled this winter.
The obligation of the UK Government to do a benefit uptake campaign is of absolutely critical importance. As soon as the UK Government announced the decision, I wrote to the Secretary of State to encourage her to do that, and we have seen some progress. Although it is a reserved benefit, the agencies in Scotland, including Social Security Scotland, are keen to amplify that message further and are working with the DWP on that.
That concludes topical questions. I will allow a moment or two for front benches to organise for the next item.
Previous
Business MotionNext
Housing