Hansard

I very much welcome the debate, because the pandemic and the national response have reminded us that, often in life, the hardest decisions are those that we do not want to make—but make them we must. Even life-saving and necessary decisions come at a cost and with consequences. It is apposite and correct that we talk about that and mitigate it, where we can safely do so.

I was grateful to the cabinet secretary for outlining the work that she is overseeing on how to make visits to care homes more humane where possible, including some creative ways to approach that. That was certainly important to my family before my grandmother passed: my family knows what it is like not to see a loved one.

I also welcome the debate because we should recognise the United Nations international day of older persons. It should be a springboard to increasing our resolve. The debate also gives us a great opportunity to solidify and build on the growing consensus for a national care service, given that the debate is shifting from whether we should establish one to how we do it.

Like me, the cabinet secretary will remember well our journey in building a social security system for Scotland. Although devolution of powers was only partial, it was nonetheless a mammoth task. Within and outwith Parliament, there was much debate, negotiation and argument, and votes were won and lost on all sides. However, our starting point was to build on a foundation of consensus about purpose and principles. We need to do likewise with a national care service.

Given that the Scottish Government has kick-started a comprehensive but short review of adult health and social care, now is the time for all parliamentarians to start building consensus, and to make sure that it is based on firm foundations by testing and debating not just the aspirations and vision, but the “How?”—the plan and the next steps. I know that many of us are already doing that, as individuals and as members of our political parties and other organisations that we are involved in. As others are, I am carrying out a consultation that is specific to the experience of residents, staff and people who have had a loved one in a care home.

Given the spectrum of care services and the desire for services to be delivered locally—in people’s homes, where possible—and to have national standards that provide a national safety net, members should make no mistake: building a national care service is a much bigger and more complex task than delivering a new social security service, or any other previous or existing government reform programme. However, I know that the prize is greater, because care touches, directly or indirectly, every aspect of our society and lives, and every public service.

Yesterday, we heard from the Reverend Dr Nanda Groenewald at time for reflection. I hope that everyone was listening, because Nanda is a minister in my constituency. She quoted Nelson Mandela and said that things may seem impossible until the next time. The pandemic remains the biggest public health crisis of our lifetimes, but even with the virus on the march again, I and others remain of the view that now is also the biggest opportunity in our lifetimes to rewrite the rules and to put right things that have never been right.

First and foremost, we need to take a human rights approach to care, but we need to find the right language to explain why it is essential to real daily life. Now is the time to put it beyond a shadow of doubt that, as a nation, we really value care work and care workers. Care workers might be low paid, but care work is never low skilled. They deserve so much more than our thanks.

Investment in social care must also be seen as an investment in wellbeing and in our economy, in the same way that the debate on childcare was transformed a few years ago with the recognition that it was key to getting women into work.

We know that the care sector employs more than 200,000 people. If we were to increase the number of people who work in care and increase pay for the work, that would increase employment rates by five percentage points and decrease the gender employment gap by four percentage points. Of course, we cannot talk about care—paid or unpaid—without talking about women.

As I have said before, we need to follow the money forensically in order to know exactly what public money is extracted from the private care sector and to the benefit of whom. Perhaps an early examination of the national care home contract would be helpful in our quest for care before profit.

I see that the Presiding Officer is giving me the nod. As usual, like other members, I feel as though I have just skated over the surface of the issues. All I will say is that we need to grasp that everything has changed—it must change and we must all play a part in that change.