Chamber and committees

I want to pick up on that last point. We are looking at the labour market inactivity as being linked to Covid, but we might be making a big leap with the assumption that the pandemic has led to it. You have talked about other factors such as skills and training, the welfare system, the lack of support and so on. What impact, if any, did the Covid-19 pandemic have on levels of economic inactivity? Are we barking up the wrong tree here?

Finally, I go to Louise Murphy. With regard to the impacts of Covid, are we seeing major increases in mental health issues? You talked about the waiting lists and the impact of that. Is there data available that shows a clear increase in mental health issues and people becoming ill? What is your view on the impact?

On that question, to what extent are pay, terms and conditions a factor? In social care, for example, we are really struggling in Scotland, but the pay and terms and conditions are so much poorer in private care provision.

Thinking about the data on each sector, can anyone else on the panel tell me whether any specific sectors have been much more impacted by Covid than others and are struggling to recover, and are there steps that the Government could take across sectors?

I have the same question for Professor Fothergill. I come from a mining community—my dad was a miner—and, as I was just saying to Jim Fairlie, after the miners strike in 1984 and 1985, most of the miners who came out did not then sign up for unemployment benefit. Instead, they went on to some kind of disability benefit. The Government seemed quite happy to keep the unemployment figures down, so I get that trend that you spoke about earlier.

Are our education and training systems geared to shift to whatever the new economy looks like, or are we failing in those areas? Why is it that people with the lowest skills cannot find employment?

I will begin with a question for Dr Randolph. In the Fraser of Allander Institute submission, you say:

“Unsurprisingly, there have been sectoral differences in employment trends during the pandemic.”

Should the Government be looking at taking specific action? Are there specific sectors that need more support with recovery? What has the impact been? Are our education system and our skills system geared up to be able to cope with the changes that are taking place?

Good morning, Professor Morris. I have one question, which is on the effectiveness of Covid spend. I think that it would be fair to say that, during the pandemic, money was no barrier in tackling and dealing with Covid. How effective was that spend? Given the much tighter financial times that we now live in, are you looking at how effective spend is or should be in our being prepared to meet further risks?

My understanding of the discussion that took place is that NHS Fife board members raised concerns about recovery at a time when they are trying to plan. As I understand it, NHS Fife has resubmitted, or is resubmitting, a further recovery plan and is making the case for further funding and resources.

The cabinet secretary must acknowledge that, at the same time, social care is in a bit of chaos in relation to the impact on hospitals, with people bed blocking. There are massive waiting times for care packages in communities. You can therefore understand why things do not seem to be joined up. There are local recovery plans to try to tackle the social care crisis and the crisis in the NHS, but, at the same time, the Scottish Government wants to claw back the money that boards got. What difference does it make if Covid funding is used for recovery? How do you define Covid recovery?

I did not intend to get drawn into a discussion about social care, but, given that you have taken me there, I note that IJBs are sitting with millions of pounds that will now be clawed back, and I understand that you want to take that money out of their reserves. What will the money be used for?

Let us look at NHS Fife again. More than 60 per cent—62 per cent, I think—of social care provision for care at home is provided through the private sector in Fife. Less than 40 per cent of care at home is provided directly through the council.

The issue with recruitment and retention is that the greatest problems lie with the 60-odd per cent of care that is being provided by the private sector, because of the pay and terms and conditions in that sector. As the Deputy First Minister knows, the inequality in pay between that sector and the public sector is massive, so the sector cannot recruit.

An example of that is the fuel allowance of 25p per mile for the care workers who are delivering 60-odd per cent of care. In the public sector, they would receive 42p or 43p—whatever it is—per mile, so you can imagine how those in the private sector struggled even more during the fuel crisis. Private companies have told me that staff left because they could not afford to pay for petrol to get to clients. We also know that inequality exists in relation to the terms and conditions of the private and public sectors.

My point is that, unless you address that or tell councils to deliver all care-at-home packages in-house, you will never tackle that problem. I cannot see a joined-up strategy or plan to finance that. By the way, the NHS Fife board is reporting that, right now, its projections show that it is about £10 million in the red, so board members are thinking, “They are clawing back millions at the same time as we are in the red and our services are in utter chaos.” I just cannot see a joined-up approach or plan.

I absolutely—