Seòmar agus comataidhean

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is, regarding the impact in Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale, to United Kingdom Government announcements regarding support for people facing poverty as a result of the rising cost of living and inflationary energy costs. (S6O-01405)

Since lodging my question, as the cabinet secretary said, the pressures on my constituents have been compounded by the terrifying economic policies of Liz Truss, with the value of the pound plummeting—which adds more cost to all imports, including food—and interest rates skyrocketing. Does the cabinet secretary therefore share my additional concerns for my rural constituents, who were already paying prices that are higher than those in urban areas?

To ask the First Minister what provision the Scottish Government is making to cope with the anticipated pressures on the NHS this winter. (S6F-01394)

As a preliminary, let me record my huge admiration for all who work in whatever capacity in the health and care sectors. Nothing brought home to me how much theirs is a vocation than their commitment during that two-year-long pandemic. The pandemic is where I will start.

Throughout the UK in the devolved health services and beyond, to Europe, the pressures, the wearing of personal protective equipment and the restrictions dramatically disrupted the usual business of our GP surgeries and hospitals. The aftermath of that situation is seen in the delays and in our playing catch-up with treatment.

I recall Borders general hospital dividing itself into two treatment areas—one for people with Covid, and the other for emergency treatments. I recall how the chief executive, along with colleagues, had to learn to adapt to that fast-evolving, global virus.

Other health treatments were postponed of necessity. Access to GP services was, and remains to this day, limited. To this day, of necessity, our GP and ambulance staff and staff in our hospitals are still taking precautionary Covid protections, which all add to delays.

Those years caused a backlog in treatments. Of course, delays in individual cases are dreadful—I have heard about them myself—but we must put them in the extraordinary context of the pandemic. I had never known a pandemic previously but, apparently it is yesterday’s news for the Opposition. It is not, and that context is fundamental. I say to Ms Mochan that the pandemic is not an excuse, but an explanation—there is world of difference.

The Conservative motion does not mention that, yet the continuing impacts of the pandemic—the fact that protections are still required; that staff in the health and care sectors are still having to take sick leave because they contract Covid; that ambulance drivers not only require the Covid protections but must sanitise their ambulances after each patient journey; that wards require extra cleaning; that GPs are limiting face-to-face consultations; and that even dentistry is trying to catch up—are all for the same reason: Covid is still among us.

All of that is fundamental to where we are today. The root cause, as of now, is the necessary postponements when Covid was at its height, the catching up that needs to be done and the continuing protections. That is corroborated by the fact that the positions in the English NHS and the Welsh NHS are worse, although I take no pleasure in saying that, because each individual—rightly—is a priority for treatment, wherever they live.

However, the NHS is working through the situation and, as in “normal times”, certain treatments and certain emergencies must take priority. I say to Jackie Baillie that, today, NHS Borders confirmed that 100 per cent of patients in the Borders who are diagnosed with cancer receive their treatment within the Scottish Government’s target period of 31 days, and that almost 97 per cent of eligible patients who are given an urgent suspicion of cancer referral have received their first treatment within the Scottish Government’s 62-day target period.

I am in my final minute.

Therefore, I commend NHS Borders.

The motion does not even dip its toe into the waters of Brexit, as a consequence of which we lost staff in the health sector and especially the care sector. That brings me to the need for us to have some honesty in this debate. Let us have more light and less heat. All Governments have struggled with the pandemic in the health and care sectors, from the early lockdown days until now. The fact that vaccines have to be delivered on a mass scale places a huge demand on NHS services.

The problems of Covid and Brexit have now been compounded by reckless Truss economic policies, which will impact on the health, the wellbeing and the safety of people in Scotland. There has been not a whisper about any of that from the Tories; I wonder why.

Almost half the country’s 32 local authorities will experience population decline over the next decade. We know that the issue is most acutely felt in remote and island areas. Local authorities have specific pressures in my constituency of Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale.

It is undeniable that Brexit, which Scotland voted against by 62 per cent, damaged Scotland’s economy even before more recent events, and it has exacerbated the trend of a diminished workforce. Freedom of movement of the workforce was previously evident in practically all aspects of Scottish life, including in sectors such as hospitality, transport, and health and social care. The UK’s skilled worker route excludes many from coming under the points-based system, with restrictions on salaries and so on. For example, for the skilled worker visa, someone must demonstrate that they have a job offer from a Home Office-licensed sponsor at the required skill level, and that they will be paid by their sponsor the relevant minimum salary threshold, which is normally £26,500 or the going rate for the particular job—whichever is higher.

In my constituency, I know from talking to local businesses—as I referred to in my intervention on my Labour colleague—that there are shortages of bus drivers and shortages in hospitality and health and social care directly as a consequence of the UK leaving the EU. It is not that people are being paid less; they are paid equally.

The loss of workers is exacerbated by the rurality of many areas for a range of reasons, not least that wages across the board tend to be lower and therefore beneath the UK threshold for visas.

We know that the population of Scotland grows older by the decade, and there also tends to be a more elderly population in rural areas. The young leave to work in more urban environments for understandable reasons, although they frequently return in older age, which adds to that elderly population. That puts additional pressure on services such as social care and health.

Delivery of services in rural areas is necessarily more time consuming, given the distances between towns and villages, and therefore more costly.

The need to retain a younger demographic has to be addressed. Rural life must be made more attractive, with reasonable access to urban areas. On that, I congratulate the Scottish Government on bringing back the Borders railway, which has seen the population grow in places such as Gorebridge and Newtongrange, with young families moving in.

There was a scheme, many moons ago—50 years ago, actually—in which the local authority offered houses to key workers, such as school teachers and GPs, so that they would to take up positions. That worked, and I benefited from it as a secondary teacher moving to Dumfries and Galloway. That, to me, is a community-driven approach, and it would be attractive to not just younger people and families, but migrants. Not only do we need more relevant immigration rules from Westminster, but they need to be targeted and more flexible, with input from local businesses and public services, as happened 50 years ago.

For my constituents—and not just the elderly population—to have mixed and thriving communities not only provides staffing for our social care and health sector, but sustains local services, such as public transport, and local businesses, such as the local plumber, and keeps the local shops on the high street open. It is essential that we are able to offer people Scotland as their home. I fully support rural visa pilots. I am glad that the cabinet secretary is back in the chamber, because I am bidding for the Borders to be one such pilot area. I know that he is a great favourite in the Borders—creep, creep!

We in Scotland surely understand better than the rest of the UK the economic need for immigration, because in many parts of the world we are migrants ourselves. We know the challenges and opportunities that exist when we make our lives in another country. The Scottish diaspora runs into millions—way beyond our indigenous population.

Unfortunately for Scotland, we are—for now—tied into the UK’s useless, heavy-handed and counterproductive immigration system, born to appease the south-east of England, and Brexiteers, who falsely blame EU migrants for economic issues, particularly in the north of England. All of those are falsehoods.

I note that Donald Cameron, who is often consensual, referred to the commitment in the 2019 Scottish Tory manifesto to targeted migration. I do not, however, share his optimism that a Liz Truss Government will resuscitate that. In any event, she has her hands full with the economic chaos that she has brought about.

Independence gives us that essential control over the macroeconomy. Part of the reason why Scotland has been losing population is that we have not had control of our macroeconomy since the union. We need control over our macroeconomy and migration, and with the actions demonstrated by the Truss-Kwarteng financial duo, I tell you that it cannot come soon enough.

I am too old for that—I am done with that sort of thing.

Will the member take an intervention?

I must intervene on behalf of employers in the Borders and Midlothian, because they have certainly not lost “cheap labour”. They do not have bus drivers or people in hotels, and they certainly were not taking them on the cheap.

Before I proceed, I have to say that I am disappointed that the previous speaker had to be whipped to speak in this delightful debate—he made such a delightful contribution. Members’ business debates should be free and easy and should not require whipping. I just wanted to raise that with the member, knowing that he is an experienced politician.

I thank my colleague Kenneth Gibson for bringing forward this motion for debate, particularly as it has introduced me—and I suspect other members—to the adopt-a-road concept, which is completely new to me. I am aware of the adopt-a-station programme; indeed, I am the sponsor of a planter at Gorebridge station. That arrangement, which is of some years’ standing, took a substantial effort by local residents and negotiations with Network Rail, including on issues of safety, a matter that I will return to with regard to the adopt-a-road scheme.

I also endorse everything that has been said about littering. It infuriates me—and I have to say that is not always caused by local people. People just drop stuff out of car windows and then drive on. Of course, for some people in society, leaving sofas by the side of the road is almost essential. I do not know why.

I have noted the experience in North America; in particular, I have taken California, Texas and British Columbia as random samples. Their programmes are not identical, but they are similar. In the Californian adopt-a-highway programme, individuals can donate materials, equipment and services, and they can also help prevent pollutants. Seventy-three per cent of the people involved are volunteers and 27 per cent are sponsors.

In Texas—only in Texas—they have the wonderful motto, “Don’t mess with Texas”. Any group can apply to their local co-ordinators, where they are provided with—and here I come back to the safety issue that I mentioned earlier—safety vests, which they call “trash bags”, and safety training. There are also signposts that identify the adopters, so the people involved get a bit of credit for what they are doing.

The rules in British Columbia are different. Participants between the ages of 12 and 16 must be supervised, which just seems common sense, but you also have to give a 10-year commitment, which is a lot to ask of volunteers. As we know, people can be dead keen at the beginning and then they start to drift away like the melting snow.

In principle, I think that the programme is a good idea. I can think of several communities in Midlothian, South Tweeddale and Lauderdale that would express an interest in it; of course, I am not going to name them and land them in it, but I know that they already take good pride in their communities. Such a move might also encourage motorists to attend to the 20mph speed limit through many of those communities, particularly if there are signs identifying community engagement and the need to keep the area tidy.

I want to take the idea to both councils in my constituency—Midlothian Council and the Borders Council—but I also come back to what for me is the key issue: safety. It is why I find the requirements in Texas of particular interest. It is one matter picking up litter in a park, but doing so beside a busy road is another matter entirely. Moreover, such a scheme must neither supplant nor replace the duties that it is incumbent upon the local authority to carry out as a result of the council tax that we pay. It is an add-on.

With that caveat about safety, I will, as I have said, be contacting both my councils. Indeed, I have already thought of slogans like “Don’t mess with Texas”. Please bear with me, as they are only works in progress, but the ones that I would suggest are “Don’t blight Borders” and “Don’t mess up Midlothian”.