Chamber and committees

I will be. Thank you convener. On Fiona King’s point about childcare, when the 1,140 hours came in for two-year-olds, a lot of work was done to try to get parents back into work. Have you seen any analysis of that, or does the Government need to do more analysis of what happened with the two-year-olds and how we might be able to expand on it and improve it?

I noted the First Minister’s headline-grabbing announcement prior to the summit of £4.5 million for after-school clubs. Does he accept that that is a drop in the ocean compared with the £1 billion financial black hole that the Government created in local authority funding through its relentless slashing of council budgets? Does he also accept that it is time for the Scottish National Party to use every lever at its disposal to improve people’s lives?

During the summit, which we attended in good faith, we outlined a number of areas where the Government could take immediate action, including wiping out of school meals debt, improvement of debt support in communities, freezing of water charges and provision of a water rebate. The First Minister said that he is listening, so when will he get on and take action in those areas to make a real difference right now?

I am very grateful, convener.

Good morning, panel. We have already touched on a number of areas that I am interested in, particularly the provision of ESOL and other services, so, if it is all right with you, convener, I will ask about the Ukrainian scheme, which has already been referred to this morning. There is a degree of learning to be taken from that; some of it has been positive, but we are also seeing some challenges in that space at the moment.

My question is quite a broad one. What positive learning can be taken from the scheme? Selina Hales, given that you started to touch on issues such as the welcome and the integration model, do you want to start?

Those comments are helpful, as some of those issues are common. There has been a pause in the supersponsor scheme in relation to the supply of housing and longer-term accommodation, and a conversation is taking place about using modular accommodation, which is concerning.

We have already heard about the broader challenge that exists, which is not the fault of the refugees who come to this country. Are you concerned about the idea of using modular accommodation? What else do you think needs to be done in the Ukraine scheme, as well as more broadly, to deal with some of those issues?

The idea of using longer-term Ukrainian resettlement funding for modular or prefab housing has been discussed, but it has been suggested that such housing could, in a sense, become camps, if I can use that expression, which I think we would all be quite uncomfortable with. Are you concerned that, if proper resourcing is not provided and we do not take a long-term look at the issue, we will end up in that scenario?

That is the concern that has been discussed. To go back to what you said previously, the issue is about how, universally, we create a situation in which people can access services that are well equipped. I represent West Scotland, so I had experience of the situation in Erskine. This is about how we bring people along with us and create a fully integrated community, rather than something on the margins of the community.

Willie Rennie makes an excellent point about the spread of ages at which loneliness can affect people. Does he agree that social media often compounds the sense of loneliness for younger people? We might expect social media to be a way of connecting young people, but many young people feel isolated because of what they see on social media or what they are expected to do in that space.

Like me, Emma Harper represents a community with both rural and town settings. Hers is perhaps a little more rural than mine in the west, but I think that we can both see the importance of tailoring our approaches for those communities where isolation manifests itself in different ways. Getting someone into a town or village setting can be quite challenging in itself. We need to look at particular needs and work with partners across the third sector and local government to do that.

In our communities, the role of the voluntary sector is critical in the delivery of services. Organisations are facing immense financial pressure, with the SCVO finding that more than 90 per cent of organisations have reported increased costs since August 2022. In tandem with rising costs, the third sector has experienced a significant increase in demand for services. In that respect, organisations are often operating with one hand tied behind their back: they are being asked to provide more support with less resource.

I think that that is why the SCVO has called for a new fair funding deal from the Scottish Government. Such a deal would mean longer-term funding of three years or more and sustainable funding that includes inflation-based uplifts, and it would allow for staff to be paid at least the real living wage. It would also mean more flexible core funding, which would allow organisations to plan more effectively and with greater security.

Our third sector needs greater stability, rather than being limited by continuous cycles of trying to secure short-term funding. The instability that is caused by short-term funding cycles is bad for the third sector, which is unable to properly plan for the medium to long term, and it is bad for communities, who benefit so much from the vital work of third sector organisations that are the life-blood of communities.

The £3.8 million social isolation and loneliness fund is, of course, welcome. However, having time-limited funds is not always helpful in addressing longer-term issues and the unsustainability that I have just spoken about. That has been part of the voluntary sector’s experience for a good long while; certainly, when I worked in the voluntary sector after leaving university in the early 2010s, we were discussing such issues. We have not made a huge amount of progress in dealing with three-year funding cycles and the associated short-termism.

Let me be clear: pressures are being compounded by decisions taken over the past 16 years that have chipped away at funding not only for the third sector but for local government—we have seen local authority budgets reduced and services cut.

I am conscious of time, Presiding Officer, so I will begin to draw my remarks to a conclusion. Scottish Labour supports the Government’s efforts to address social isolation and loneliness, but it is time to deliver on the 2018 pledge and recognise that the scale of the challenge is now larger and more significant, impacting a wider demographic of the population than prior to the Covid-19 pandemic. It is time to deliver on a commitment of building back better, which means recognising that, in the aftermath of the pandemic, we are facing endemic loneliness. It is a crucial public health issue, and it is time to start approaching it with the resources and urgency that reflect that, in order to give sustainability to the organisations that can make the most difference in our local communities.

I move amendment S6M-08758.2, to leave out from “welcomes” to end and insert:

“acknowledges the investment that the Scottish Government is making through the three-year, £3.8 million Social Isolation and Loneliness Fund, which will create opportunities for people to connect with one another in Scotland’s communities; commends the work of organisations and communities to tackle this issue; recognises that tackling this public health issue is a collective responsibility and requires a shared commitment across the public, private and third sectors; notes that precarious funding risks the third sector’s contribution and ability to deliver vital services for people and communities across Scotland; further notes that this can lead to disconnects between national policy and the implementation of policy at the local level, and understands that a long-term, flexible, sustainable, and accessible approach to funding is central to a sustainable voluntary sector, which can deliver measurable impacts on loneliness and isolation in Scotland.”

I am pleased to open this important debate on behalf of the Scottish Labour Party. The Government motion is right to recognise the impact of the Covid pandemic on social isolation and I agree with much of the minister’s contribution.

It is undoubtedly the case that, by its nature, the pandemic exacerbated social isolation as people practised physical distancing, limiting their social interactions to those within their own household bubbles. It can sometimes be hard to recall those days, which were, of course, only a few years ago and impacted us all in such a profound way.

The Scottish Government took an important step when it published its strategy on social isolation and loneliness in 2018, but it is frustrating that, five years later, we are still debating its implementation rather than examining its impact. I understand that the implementation of the strategy was delayed by the pandemic, but it is needed now more than ever, which is why I welcome the publication of the delivery plan and the minister’s commitment to that in her opening remarks.

Throughout the pandemic, we were acutely aware of the impact of social isolation and loneliness. There was a concerted focus on stopping people feeling disconnected, isolated or lonely. However, at the reopening of our society, the epidemic of loneliness did not end with the end of the restrictions. In the latter days of the pandemic, as we started to think about our Covid recovery, the political discourse was infused with hope and it focused on building back better and how to establish a better new normal. However, the British Red Cross found that, in rebuilding after the pandemic, two in three Scots agreed that tackling loneliness should be a priority for the Government.

The pandemic revealed everyone’s vulnerability to loneliness. New research from the British Red Cross found that 37 per cent of people in Scotland feel lonely always, often or some of the time. As I have said already, for some, the pandemic exacerbated an underlying sense of isolation. For many others, it was people’s first or perhaps most profound experience of a despairing sense of loneliness.

It is concerning that there remains a persistent stigma around feelings of loneliness, with the Mental Health Foundation finding that 39 per cent of adults in Scotland would never admit to feeling lonely. People’s loneliness is being compounded by silence, with too many not able to access the support that they need because they feel too embarrassed or ashamed to speak out. It is therefore right—and I think that there is consensus around this in Parliament today—that we must treat loneliness as a public health issue.

Loneliness is more than feeling isolated or disconnected. It has a profound impact on our general health and mortality. For example, the National Institute on Aging has estimated that social isolation and loneliness can shorten someone’s life expectancy by up to 15 years, with loneliness increasing the risk of stroke and heart disease by around 30 per cent.

During the Easter recess, I took the opportunity to visit some projects in my region that are seeking to reduce social isolation in the community. I had the great pleasure of visiting a local knit and natter group in Giffnock library. The group has helped local people to reconnect and reintegrate into society as they come out of the pandemic. It is helping a range of people who are still dealing with the effects of long Covid and those who are suffering from residual social anxiety, as well as helping those who have moved to a new area during the pandemic and have struggled to meet new people to integrate into the wider community. The knitting is secondary to the nattering, which was just as well, given my lack of ability with the needles, but the importance of the group is rooted in its ability to bring people together and provide them with their own space to make social connections, and to engage in general chit-chat, which is so important in people’s everyday lives. It was a privilege to listen to the many members of the group explain the profound impact of dealing with their feelings of isolation and doing so in an informal way. Many of them also told me about the improvements that they have seen in their mental health as a result.

That group might be an example in one town, but I know that there are groups like it across Scotland and I am sure that we will hear about many examples of that from across the chamber today. Such groups are helping people to rebuild their confidence, tackle their loneliness and create new friendships. Those are the types of intervention that we need to deal with this endemic loneliness.

Of course we need big bold action to address these issues, but that does not mean that all resources should be targeted towards centralised or national campaigns. We need strong support for local initiatives that are rooted in communities and which reflect the needs of specific communities around the country. Any initiative to tackle social isolation and loneliness must be rooted in removing all the barriers that hinder social interaction, and that must be holistic in its nature. For example, when looking for a location in the community, we must consider whether the venue is accessible, affordable or free, warm and easy to travel to on foot or by public transport as well as by car.

For reference, I am chair of the trustees of the Neilston War Memorial Association, and a member of Enable Scotland.