Chamber and committees

It is clear that, in the current climate, the NHS faces recruitment challenges across the four nations in attracting people with the right skills from outwith the UK. Does the health secretary agree that comments such as those of Mr Sweeney’s UK party leader, Keir Starmer, do not reflect the welcoming nature of Scotland’s NHS, and that Brexit, which Labour now clearly backs, is a further barrier to recruitment in our NHS?

Donald Cameron mentioned Duolingo. There isnae a Duolingo fur Scots. Would he encourage a Duolingo being created to help folk speak Scots better?

The member talks about technology. One of the things that is happening in Dumfries and Galloway, when they are recruiting new nurses, is that they are yaising Scots so that, when the nurses look efter patients, when somebody says that they have a sair heid, it is something that even nurses from other countries can understand. Would you welcome that?

As the co-convener o the Scots leid cross-pairty group wi ma colleague Jackie Dunbar MSP, I am awfie chuffed tae speik and I will focus my contribution on Scots.

I want tae see legislation endorsin the Scots leid and I threap that we need an act fur the Scots leid.

The Scots leid is a michtie important pairt o Scotland’s cultural heirship, kythin in sang, poems and leeterature, and in ilkaday yaise in wir communities forby.

The 2011 census comprehendit a question anent the Scots leid fur the first time. Yin and a hauf million folk reportit that they could speik Scots and 1.9 million cumulatively reportit that they could speik, read, scrieve or unnerstaun Scots. I look forrit tae the results o the maist recent census—I jalouse that these nummers will be mair—fur tae see aw the nummers o oor folk wha speik, read, scrieve and unnerstaun Scots. Scots isnae jist a collection o regional dialects. There is a muckle history o this now evolvin leid.

Here is a wee quote fae Scots scriever, television presenter and broadcaister, Alistair Heather:

“The Scots have kent that they’ve had their ain leid fur the last six hunner year. It’s only in the last 40 that they’ve forgotten it.”

The activists fur Scots will mak siccar that wir wirds will be shared in aa ways—as I said, through sangs, poems and essays, on telly, radio and social media, and across the internet in monie forms.

Here in Scotland, we have soonds in place names and people’s names that dinnae match the spellings: Cullean castle is spelt Culzean; Mingies is spelt Menzies; Kirkgounyon—a village near Dalbeattie—is spelt Kirkgunzeon; and Dee-el is spelt Dalziel. Those names are all currently misspelled because they contain the letter yogh, which is the 27th letter o the Scots alphabet. It has been lost; it is tint. The yogh was replaced by Z or Y in early printers. At some point in the future, we should correct that muckle mistake and bring back the letter yogh.

As we have heard, Scots is our hame language. It is one of the three languages in use in Scotland the day. Words in Scots by the likes o Robert Burns, Walter Scott and Hugh MacDiarmid are scrievit on the foonds o the walls—the foundations o this buildin. Scots words are literally haudin up oor national Parliament.

The Scots Language Centre, Hands up for Trad, the Scots language awards, Wee Windaes, Oor Vyce, Scots Hoose and ambassadors sic as Lennie Pennie, Emma Grae, Billy Kay, my pal Susi Briggs fae Galloway—she is a braw storyteller—and sic a few mair help tae widen access tae Scots. Aa these folk, and mair, are daein fantastic work and they need supportit.

In session 4 o wir Parliament, Rob Gibson MSP convened the Scots leid cross-party group, which created the statement o principles tae advance Scots. As the statement o principles says, naebodie should be penalised or pitten doon fur speikin Scots. There are 13 statements o principle in Rob’s wee red book. Some o them are bein addressed the noo, but some havenae been yet.

Nummer 5 in the statement o principles shows that the Scots leid must receive mair fundin and investment. Currently, the Scottish Government provides £480,000 in funding fur the Scots leid each year. That compares wi £29.6 million spent on Gaelic. In nae way am I sayin that Gaelic isnae important. It absolutely is. Across Scotland, we hae monie historic ties tae Gaelic, includin place names in Dumfries and Galloway, where I am fae. However, my ask of the cabinet secretary is to increase funding fur the Scots leid tae secure its future. I hope that that can be addressed in the legislation.

The consultation that has been referred tae by monie folk, including the cabinet secretary the day—I encourage folk tae hae their say on that; ye have until midnight on 17 November—provides an exciting opportunity tae create a sustainable future fur Scots.

We aa need tae enhance the work of the Scots organisations, we need tae bolster the yaise o Scots in education and we need tae invest in Scots to mak siccar its future. Pursuin an act o the Scots leid is key tae deliverin the recognition that activists have been workin on fur monie a year. The Scots leid activists are daein a phenomenal job, and an act and funding support are crucial tae deliverin Scots education and awareness. As the auld Scots sayin goes, tak tent or it’s tint—take care or it’s lost.

I ask the cabinet secretary to comment on whether a Bòrd na Gàidhlig equivalent fur the Scots leid is needed, or can sicklike existing established bodies as the Scots Language Centre be vehicles to continue to deliver, as they are currently doing?

Again, I welcome the debate and look forrit tae ilka ither contribution.

Jamie Halcro Johnston mentioned Peter Chapman. He wanted tae join the cross-pairty group on the Scots leid. We dinnae have any Conservatives the noo. Would the member maybe do a bit of encouraging to see whether any o his colleagues will want tae join our cross-pairty group?

I understand that the consultation is looking at Scots and Gaelic but that there will not necessarily be a single revising bill. We will not even measure Gaelic and Scots, because you cannae measure them at the same time. I simply want to clarify the argument that Rhoda Grant is presenting.

As a member of the committee, I welcome the opportunity to highlight and focus on our report. It has been interesting to hear others’ contributions.

The report highlights that primary health is vital in ensuring people are seen by the most relevant professional for their needs and is crucial in relieving pressure on secondary care, particularly when our NHS is under the greatest pressure that it has experienced in its 74-year lifetime as we emerge and recover from the pandemic.

We looked at a wide variety of areas in our report on alternative pathways to primary care. I thank the witnesses, clerks and my colleagues for their input. We heard about community link workers; ALISS, which is an online local digital system for signposting and supporting people; the role of digital health and care; single electronic patient records; third sector involvement; and a lot more besides. I will focus on social prescribing and recruitment.

Social prescribing was not a widely used term during the previous session of Parliament, but more and more people now understand what that is and what its benefits are. In our report, the committee welcomed the increased uptake of social prescribing during the pandemic and the positive lived experience that those who have used it told us about. The evidence that we heard shows that social prescribing is effective in targeting the causes of health inequalities and that it can vastly improve mental health and wellbeing. We have heard others highlight that during the debate.

However, the committee took evidence that patients who used social prescribing during Covid recovery are now reverting to contacting their GP in the first instance, even though on-going use of social prescribing could offer better outcomes.

We heard how cost is a critical barrier to people accessing social prescribing pathways, particularly in areas of multiple deprivation. One point that came up is that there is no single national lead on social prescribing because responsibility for it is shared between two Scottish Government ministerial portfolios. I ask the minister to provide an update on the Government’s work to simplify the national approach to social prescribing and to better align ministerial portfolios so that there can be leadership and accountability on social prescribing in alternative pathways to primary care.

I turn to recruitment. The committee heard evidence to suggest that sustainable long-term workforce planning will be a critical prerequisite for encouraging greater use of alternative pathways to primary care in the future. Evidence that was submitted to us suggests that that must include consideration of how roles and skills requirements are likely to change as a result of advances in technology and the on-going evolution of services and their delivery.

I agree with Alison Keir of the Allied Health Professionals Federation Scotland and others who have indicated that it is really important not to look at workforce planning around team members but to understand it from the point of view of population-health need. We must plan the workforce from that perspective rather than say that we need X physiotherapists, occupational therapists, dieticians and so on.

I welcome the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care’s launch of a new GP recruitment campaign this June, as part of the Scottish Government’s commitment to increase the number of GPs in Scotland by 2027. By highlighting the flexible, supportive and collaborative environment that is available here, the campaign seeks to encourage GPs from the rest of the UK to relocate to Scotland. That campaign is in addition to the Scottish graduate entry to medicine programme—ScotGEM—which allows graduates with healthcare and science degrees to train to be GPs with a particular focus on rural medicine. Dumfries and Galloway is part of the programme, and feedback from that areas ScotGEM lead is extremely positive.

Scotland is struggling to recruit in social care and nursing. A fall in the size of the working-age population and the ending of free movement of people as a result of Brexit have contributed to those challenges. Although the Scottish Government’s steps are welcome, recruitment and retention of the workforce across multidisciplinary teams will be crucial to our success in promoting greater use of alternative pathways to primary care. That will be a particular interest of mine as we scrutinise the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill. The committee’s report recommended that the Scottish Government provide an update on its work to assist health boards in developing an integrated approach to workforce planning and overcoming recruitment challenges.

The report also describes strengthening people’s understanding of the role of medical receptionists, who are critical in signposting folk to get the support that they need. I welcome the Scottish Government’s right care, right place campaign, which aims to increase that understanding. I am sure that lots of work has gone into creating the campaign, but my concern is that it mibbe isnae reaching the public as effectively as it could. Perhaps it needs a relaunch and for its messages to be shared again. I will use my social media accounts to share them and I encourage colleagues to do the same with theirs.

There is loads to read in the report, which was published in June. Securing parliamentary time to debate our committee reports is crucial. I encourage all members to read the report and to share its contents, because it has a lot of worthwhile material in it.

Some of what the member is saying is interesting, and some of it is in the report. However, it seems as if what he is proposing is not what the report was about. Could he provide some clarity about the part of the report that he is referring to?

I have questions about the workforce and fair work. Section 1 of the bill says that

“the National Care Service is to be an exemplar in its approach to fair work for the people who work for it and on its behalf, ensuring that they are recognised and valued for the critically important work that they do.”

In the previous evidence session, Nick Morris said that a national care service should allow for greater awareness of the work that social care staff and social workers do.

Can you comment on the fair work principles in the bill and say whether anything still needs to be added? Are there any gaps?

I will pick up on what Nick Morris said about the national health service, which was created 70-plus years ago but is obviously still a work in progress, given the changes that we see happening in it. I take on board what you are saying about the creation of a national care service needing to be done with consideration. We need to do it carefully and make sure that we get the legislation right.

However, that brings me back to the beginning. This is a framework bill and there will probably be amendments after our stage 1 report, but I am interested in how we make sure that we bring everybody along with us. It is great that we are singing the praises of social workers and that we can use this to value their work. That could be done using national approaches to skills development, education and things like that, as well. I am interested in your thoughts on that.