Chamber and committees

In having the opportunity to do things differently, is there an element that is potentially adding more risk to an already overburdened system by looking at how things could be done differently? Maybe exploring them and giving them a try with certain people is just too much for some social workers, given their case loads when dealing with that, and giving people space is one of the things that can open up creativity across the piece.

Coming back to Ann Marie Penman’s comment about the broad nature of care plans, do you think that there is a willingness to write those plans in a broad way in order to give people the creativity to spend money as they wish? Is that happening in some places and not in others? Is it the luck of the draw, depending on which local authority you are in, who your social workers are and so on?

Thank you—that was really useful.

I have a somewhat wider question for Dr Nolan. With the previous panel, we discussed variability in implementation of SDS, in particular for different age groups. Does awareness need to be raised about the different options that exist? Again, I highlighted to the previous panel the fact that, for my family, the default provision was a 15-minute visit for an elderly relative; that was what we were given, and we never questioned it. I know that care happens in local authorities in different ways and that some local authorities treat different age groups differently. Does more awareness need to be raised in that respect?

Absolutely. Thank you.

That was great. Thank you.

Do you think there is a tendency for local authorities to go with the default option rather than looking into other more creative ways of providing services? Are they all so stretched across the board that that is standing in the way of their capacity for thinking differently about how they come at things?

I welcome Tim Eagle to the chamber. I sincerely hope that his jokes are better than Craig Hoy’s.

I thank those who are leaving their positions in Government for all their work. I have found Elena Whitham and Michael Matheson to be constructive; they engaged well with me on a variety of issues. I am looking forward to working with Neil Gray in his new role as Cabinet Secretary for NHS Recovery, Health and Social Care, and Christina McKelvie as the new Minister for Drugs and Alcohol Policy. I know how fierce they both are in their approach to their portfolios. There are many challenges to deal with, and I am sure that they will take the opportunity to be open and collaborative, as their predecessors were.

My party is pleased to see the return of transport to a Cabinet position and we congratulate Fiona Hyslop on her return to Cabinet. My colleagues are looking forward to continuing to work with her on cutting car miles, improving rail and bus services and improving connectivity across the country.

I also congratulate Màiri McAllan on her expanded portfolio. Joining up the economy and net zero will, we hope, open up all the opportunities of a green economy.

Finally, I congratulate the two new ministers, Jim Fairlie and Kaukab Stewart, on their first appointments to the Government. I know that my colleagues are looking forward to working with both of them. It is worth noting the significance of Kaukab Stewart’s appointment, making her the first woman of colour to enter Government. That will make not just the Parliament but the Government better reflect Scotland as a whole.

We hope that the recess has given the new ministers some time to get to grips with their new portfolios, even if it has not given them a rest. I am sure that their friends and families are proud of them, and we look forward to working with them on what comes next to bring Scotland a bright future.

I join others in wishing Elena Whitham well. I welcome the cabinet secretary’s announcement that the minimum unit price will be raised. Although MUP is having an effect, retailers are pocketing any profits that are generated. I welcome the inclusion of a public health levy in the budget, which, as we heard at the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, would be a potential win-win for public health. Can the Deputy First Minister outline the timeline for work on a levy? Does she agree that there is huge potential benefit for services in recouping that money?

I thank the minister for taking the intervention. The Grangemouth site is quite unique in how close it is to the town and where people live. In some cases, the site is only across a road and down a grass verge from people’s houses. Will the minister commit to involving the community in what the site looks like, what comes next and the impact on their living environment?

I thank Stephen Kerr for bringing the debate to the chamber. I also thank workers, the unions and the local community for their thoughts, opinions and concerns about the announcement and the future of the site.

Having grown up in Grangemouth and having managed only a mile further up the hill, I know how important the issue is to the entire area. I am angry, on behalf of the workers and the community, that the announcement was given weeks before Christmas. The bottom line of the company—which, as we have already heard, has been questioned—has been put before the workers and the impact on the community. The timetable, which has been questioned by members across the chamber, seems arbitrary, to say the least.

There is a lot of uncertainty and worry across the community. I know that local small businesses are worried about what the announcement means for them. At the drop-in that was organised by Richard Leonard, we heard that workers who are parents are concerned about their job security and what the announcement might mean in relation to uprooting their families. The ripples of the announcement reach far and wide across Grangemouth, as well as more widely across Falkirk.

As we have heard, there has been industry on the site for nearly 100 years, and I am sure that there will be industry on the site long after any of us in the chamber are here. As well as having a conversation about how jobs can continue on the site in the short term, we need to discuss what the industry will look like in the future, how we will get there and what that means for workers and those who live close to the refinery. To do all of that, we need to save the jobs, and we need Government support in that regard. It is clear that, if we leave a just transition to the companies involved, it just will not happen. We need certainty—and quickly—to stop potentially highly skilled people leaving their jobs. We need time for those dedicated and skilled workers to transfer or change their skills to whatever comes next, and we need meaningful engagement with the community about what they would like to see on their doorstep. That has not happened on the site so far.

Unions want to engage with Petroineos and the Government to explore the reasoning behind the company’s decision and what can be done to support workers. If any member has not done so already, I encourage them to read the briefing from Unite the union that came in earlier this afternoon. I also believe that, if they have not done so already, the owners of Petroineos and PetroChina should come to the site to speak to workers and explain their decision. We need a just transition, which, according to their briefing this morning, is what the workers want—a move to the site hosting industries that are better for people and the planet, that provide well-paid jobs and that have good terms and conditions.

I am aware that there are a range of opinions across the chamber as to what form the next step should take, but I hope that the community and the workers who are watching today know that their representatives, including me, are not taking this lying down and that we are committed to saving their jobs and providing a bright future for Grangemouth.