Chamber and committees

I express my sympathy to those who have been affected by the recent severe weather, and I pay tribute to the first-class response by local authorities, emergency responders and the public, in dealing with the significant impact. The increasing frequency and severity of those events provides stark evidence of the impacts of climate change and the pressing need for a positive outcome from the 26th United Nations climate conference of the parties—COP26.

Reducing flood risk is a priority for the Government, so we will continue to support authorities to deliver actions that protect our communities. We continue to fund the Scottish Flood Forum, which works with communities to build resilience and support those who are affected by flooding. The forum is currently helping individuals and businesses who have been affected by the recent flooding in Dumfries and Galloway and the Scottish Borders.

In addition, we are working in co-operation with the United Kingdom Government to ensure that flood insurance remains widely available and affordable through the Flood Re scheme, which was launched in 2016.

Since 2008, we have made available funding of £42 million each year to local authorities to invest in flood protection measures to help to reduce the risk of flooding to households and businesses. We are also investing an additional £150 million in flood risk management and £12 million in coastal-change adaptation over the next five years, as part of the green recovery from Covid-19.

I associate myself with the remarks about the local resilience partnership not just in Dumfries and Galloway but in the Scottish Borders, both of which, based on the Scottish Environment Protection Agency’s forward intelligence from forecasting, were stood up, notwithstanding the significant pressures on emergency services just now because of preparations for and operation of the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP26. Full operations were put in place by the local resilience commanders in Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders. A lot of support was in place. I am thankful that the very significant precautionary activities that were stood up were not required in Hawick, on that occasion.

We will engage further with the relevant local authorities and communities about the steps that will be taken. I look forward to discussing some of the questions with the community in Annan tomorrow.

I also say to Emma Harper that any work to prioritise schemes is informed by the best advice that SEPA can provide for us. There will be an exercise to determine which schemes will progress. Those matters are always complex. I assure her that we will continue to engage with the issues that she has raised about Dumfries and Galloway.

The Bellwin scheme was activated by the Government on Friday. The point that Mr Smyth raised with me is clarified by the announcements that were made by ministers. He is correct that the provisions of the Bellwin scheme compensate local authorities for additional costs that could not have been foreseen.

Discretionary scheme funding of the type that we had in 2016 is an issue that the Government can consider. I will visit the area in Annan tomorrow, where I will see for myself some of the issues that Mr Smyth has raised with me. I will have the opportunity to discuss with local stakeholders any issues that arise in relation to specific discretionary support of the type that Mr Smyth mentioned.

In the work that is undertaken on schemes of that type—I do not want to make a sweeping generalisation although, having said that, I am about to do so—the more water that can be retained in the upland environment, the better it is for lower-lying areas such as Tweed Green, in Peebles, which Christine Grahame mentioned. I am thankful that the flood banks in Peebles were able to withstand the pressures on them last week.

The measures that are taken further up water courses are essential in holding back waters in a flood incident, so that they can be dispersed in a more leisurely fashion, over a longer period. It is the intensity of water flow that can cause the problems that we see in places such as Peebles, Hawick and places that Mr Smyth mentioned. The design of such schemes is intended to address some of those questions.

I acknowledge the line of argument that Mr Rowley is pursuing, but will he acknowledge that the Government has taken steps in recent weeks, with the announcements from the health secretary, to improve the pay of social care workers, and that we are actively involved in discussions on the issue with our local authority partners?

I am grateful to Dr Gulhane for giving way, because I could not agree more with the words that he has just said, which were exactly what I said when I intervened on Mr Fraser. There are well-advertised alternatives to appearing at accident and emergency departments that people should pursue. I am arguing not for self-diagnosis, but for people to use the available alternative routes in order to avoid presenting at accident and emergency.

There is a substantial issue here. I hope that Mr Fraser understands that the Government and health boards have to say to people that there must be good and appropriate reason for individuals to use accident and emergency. They are not called “accident and emergency” departments for any casual reason; they are for when people have had an accident or for a situation that is an emergency. There are many other aspects of healthcare available.

I encourage Mr Fraser to take a considered view—which is the point that both Christine Grahame and John Mason made—as to the judgments that people should make in seeking the appropriate healthcare for the circumstances and difficulties that they face.

Yes is the short answer to Pam Duncan-Glancy’s question, because I am struck by the opportunities. I was looking at material on that the other day from some of our social enterprise organisations, for example. Some of those ideas might be able to assist in the challenge of expanding the social care workforce, which the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care has clearly been actively focused on addressing, because of the reach of some of those organisations into our communities in delivering locally based employment, which perhaps saves transport costs for individuals. I very much welcome that. I have just agreed to meet Social Investment Scotland and Social Enterprise Scotland to continue some of the discussions with them that I greatly enjoyed when I was the finance secretary to establish how they can contribute to the Covid recovery strategy. I look forward to those discussions.

The strategy must be viewed as a national effort. Therefore, it requires collaboration. I have signalled in it the Government’s willingness to work closely with our local authority partners. We intend to establish a joint oversight board with local government to share in the implementation and application of the strategy not through any form of top-down approach but by engagement and collaboration involving the third and private sectors, to ensure that we put as much effort into tackling poverty and delivering a fairer future as we put into tackling a pandemic that was a threat to all our lives.

I encourage the Parliament to support the Government’s Covid recovery strategy.

I move,

That the Parliament welcomes the publication of the Covid Recovery Strategy, published on 5 October 2021, which sets out the Scottish Government’s ambitious vision for a green recovery and details the actions that will be taken in partnership with local government, business organisations, the third sector and others across Scotland to address systemic inequalities made worse during the pandemic, make progress towards a wellbeing economy, and accelerate inclusive person-centred public services by focusing on improving financial security for low-income households, supporting the wellbeing of children and young people, and creating good, green jobs and fair work.

On 5 October, I set out to Parliament the Scottish Government’s Covid recovery strategy. The strategy sets out the Government’s vision for recovery and our commitment to supporting those who have been most affected during the pandemic. I very much hope that members across the chamber will support the strategy and this Government’s wider efforts to bring about a fairer future for the people of Scotland.

As we look towards an uncertain and challenging winter period ahead, it is clear that the pandemic is not yet over. We must all continue to take the appropriate steps to keep ourselves, our loved ones and our communities safe, and I warmly thank all those who are continuing to play their part to protect Scotland. However, because of the measures that we have taken to control the virus and the incredible success of the vaccination programme, life for many will feel much more normal than it has done for quite some time. As a consequence, while we continue to focus on responding to the pandemic, the Government is able to take the necessary steps to support and enable a fair recovery from the pandemic. I will set out today how the Covid recovery strategy will bring about that fairer future, particularly for those who have been most impacted during the pandemic.

As I set out in my previous statement, the pandemic has dramatically affected every aspect of our lives. The Government has asked people to change where and how they work, conduct business and socialise with friends and family. Although the past 18 months have taken a significant toll on people across the country, there have been positive examples of collaborative working and people solving problems in creative and imaginative ways in all the communities that we have the privilege to represent. Alongside addressing the harms of the pandemic, the Government will learn from and build on the positives that have emerged from it.

Although it is true that the pandemic has affected us all and required much sacrifice from many, it is not the case that all have been impacted equally. The pandemic has highlighted and worsened inequalities across our country, and for many, the past 18 months have been incredibly challenging. People who were disadvantaged before the pandemic have been hardest hit during it. Those individuals—our neighbours, friends and constituents—were more likely to become seriously ill and, sadly, to die from Covid, and they were the hardest hit socially and economically as a result of the necessary restrictions that were introduced to control the spread of the virus.

People living in low-income households have been able to save less, have taken on more debt and have been significantly impacted by labour market pressures. Our children and young people have been affected through school closures and uncertainty about their learning, training and employment. We also know that many unpaid carers have faced added pressure during the pandemic and it has been an incredibly difficult time for them. We are in regular touch with carers’ representatives, including Carers Scotland, to make sure that we understand carers’ concerns and can act accordingly. We have invested an additional £28.5 million for local carer support in this year’s budget, bringing total investment under the Carers (Scotland) Act 2016 to £68 million per year.

The pandemic also resulted in an unprecedented shock to Scotland’s economy and job market, and existing job market inequalities have been exacerbated, with Brexit reinforcing those inequalities.

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

I agree whole-heartedly with Mr Johnson—he makes a substantial point that poses a challenge to Government and to a variety of institutions around the country to ensure that the interventions that we put in place can directly and satisfactorily address the issue that he cites. There are vacancies in the labour market; Mr Johnson will know from speaking to businesses in his constituency, as I speak to those in my constituency and around the country, that they are facing real challenges around vacancies.

Equally, however—as Murdo Fraser and I discussed at portfolio question time yesterday—there will be individuals who are unemployed or whose jobs have come to an end after furlough but who may not have the ideal skills to enable them to move into another sector. Our colleges and institutions, and our training interventions such as the young persons guarantee and the transition training fund, must all be efficient and focused in order to address the issue that Mr Johnson fairly puts to me. I give him an assurance that the Government is constantly addressing those questions.

In addition, we must also focus—I made this point to Mr Fraser yesterday—on people in our society who are currently economically inactive and who, with appropriate levels of support, assistance and perhaps additional public services, could be assisted to enter the labour market. The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care has regularly raised concerns about the availability of the social care workforce, which is critical to ensuring that the demand for care packages in our community is satisfactorily met—a point that I discussed with Jackie Baillie at question time yesterday.

We can potentially enable some of those economically inactive individuals to gain access to the labour market with the proper support that they require. Indeed, ministers were wrestling yesterday with some of the issues in respect of wraparound childcare, which I recognise to be a significant issue. In closing the debate today, the Minister for Zero Carbon Buildings, Active Travel and Tenants’ Rights will talk about housing supply issues, which are material to ensuring that individuals can find the stability to enable them to enter the labour market. Mr Johnson makes a very fair point.