Seòmar agus comataidhean

The Tuesday Covid statements to the Parliament are essential for the Parliament to hold the Scottish Government to account. Public engagement and compliance is key, as it has been from the start, and compliance has been very high. However, constituents tell me that they miss the regular lunch time televised Covid information updates, which were so important in the early days of the pandemic. In the fast-moving situation that has been brought about by the omicron variant, can the lunch time public information broadcasts be reinstated?

I absolutely accept the necessity of people being safe. However, given the current pressures of omicron—which are understandably very distracting for people—as well as the rising cost of energy, I welcome flexibility on the deadline. I hope that the cabinet secretary will take into account the other pressures that are on households just now, quite apart from their obtaining devices and having them installed.

I welcome the inquiry, which will quite rightly be extensive and in depth. I note that there are 12 heads but that, as the Deputy First Minister said in his statement, the chair is asked

“To identify lessons and implications for the future, and provide recommendations”,

and

“To provide reports”—

that word is plural—

“to the Scottish Ministers as soon as practicable.”

Am I correct to assume that the chair is being asked to identify under the specific heads which matters to report on “as soon as practicable”, so there will be interim reports rather than just a fully fledged report for the entire inquiry? That will be a matter for the chair.

I refer to the economic impact of investment in culture. The Great Tapestry of Scotland centre was built in Galashiels with £2.5 million in Scottish Government funding. To date, since its opening in late August, 7,000 tickets have been sold despite Covid. Does the minister agree that the £2.5 million was an investment not only in the centre and the regeneration of Galashiels but in the wider Borders economy?

Rising energy costs hit pensioners in particular, many of whom are housebound. Despite that, according to Age Scotland, at least 123,000 pensioners in Scotland have not claimed pension credit. It is reckoned that 40 per cent of eligible pensioners across the UK do not claim that benefit, which is a gateway to additional benefits.

Does the First Minister agree that the UK Government should be ashamed and that, instead of removing the triple lock on pensions, it should fund a decent basic state pension in the first place?

I, too, refer to the additional funding of £200 million that is going directly to local government to fund the increase to £10.50 per hour—as a minimum—the pay of adult social care staff. That is to be welcomed, but in order to increase recruitment we have to look beyond that to career progression for people in the care sector. Will that form part of the considerations of the national care service?

Further to the First Minister’s answer to Pam Gosal, I suggest that there are two big advantages in distributing LFD tests through supermarkets and garden centres. First, it is so easy for someone to pop something into their shopping trolley—it is almost casually done. Secondly, it will increase education, and the importance of flow before you go.

I, too, attended the briefing on Friday with NHS Lothian, and then I went to one with NHS Borders. Further to the answers to Daniel Johnson, the problem is not just in Edinburgh. As of today, of the 300 beds in Borders general hospital, seven are occupied by Covid patients, but 51 are occupied by those whose discharge is delayed. I appreciate the various causes of that but, if we are losing 17 per cent of bed capacity when all the predictable challenges of winter lie ahead, we have an immediate problem.

I am listening carefully to the cabinet secretary’s answers. Given that delayed discharge is a problem in the Borders, too, is he meeting Ralph Roberts of NHS Borders?

I congratulate Pam Duncan-Glancy on securing this timeous debate—she is a force to be reckoned with, and thank goodness.

We have come a long way since we used the definition

“a person who is unable to walk or move properly through disability or because of injury to their back or legs.”

According to the “Oxford English Dictionary”, that definition was first used as long ago as 950AD. Today, under the Equality Act 2010, someone is disabled if they have

“a physical or mental impairment”

that has

“a substantial and long-term adverse effect”

on their ability

“to carry out normal day-to-day activities.”

That recognises, as does the motion, that many disabilities are invisible. Many decades ago, when I was a secondary teacher, we were not aware of issues such as autism. We might have had autistic children in the class behaving strangely, but we had no idea.

I confess that the term “disabled” sits uncomfortably with me, as it can be construed as having pejorative undertones. I do not know how we move away from that.

In my lifetime, there have been improvements in the perception of and provision for those with impairments. That is not simply in providing equipment to assist people—although that is important—but in recognising the obligation to ensure a level playing field for work and life at large. I am talking not just about having access and hearing loops but about seeing beyond the disability to the person.

Not many decades ago, our society hid some people with disabilities—they were even locked up—and it certainly did not go out of its way to make accommodations. In too many parts of the world, the situation is still a struggle or even Dickensian.

I will start with the Parliament building. It was ensured that those with impairments were involved at the beginning of construction. We have Braille signs and disabled access, although some lift locations are simply daft, as I am sure Pam Duncan-Glancy has found. Ramp access in the chamber had to be adapted. We have a hearing loop system, although I recall that alterations had to be made to that after the Parliament was built.

In the selection of Scottish National Party candidates for this place, endeavours are made not to disadvantage those with disabilities and to encourage them to go forward. In our regional list system, anybody with a disability who is on a list automatically goes to the top of it. I am not talking about patronising people; I absolutely agree with everything that Jeremy Balfour said about not patronising people. We must have a system that allows people to fulfil their potential, whatever it is.

I remind members that, when Dennis Robertson was a member, he had his wonderful dog, Mr Q, in here. Staff fought for the right to walk Mr Q, who even had his own pass. Woe betide anyone whose speech was boring, because Mr Q had a very loud snore—that was bigger than any critique from other members.

I will talk briefly about changing perceptions. In an episode of the detective series “A Touch of Frost”, two young actors with Down’s syndrome portrayed a couple with Down’s syndrome who fell in love and wanted to get married. That exposed prejudices among parents and society at large, and the episode had a big impact.

Brian Whittle mentioned the Paralympics, which I have spoken about before. That has made a difference to perceptions of disabilities. Some folk used to turn away from looking at an amputee, but that is ordinary now. The Paralympics have had a lasting impact on children who share such disabilities.

“Strictly Come Dancing” was mentioned at First Minister’s question time. I confess that I watch the programme with a whisky and the cat—that is the sad story of my Saturday nights. When I saw Rose Ayling-Ellis dancing so beautifully, I clean forgot that she is deaf. The result of her participation has been a huge increase in the number of people who wish to learn to sign. She is an inspiration to others who have a similar impairment.

My conclusion is that, yes, politicians can change life for those with disabilities through policies and legislation, which are important, but, in my book, it is popular programmes and events that give the extra push to equality and change societal perceptions.

Further to Annabelle Ewing’s question, although I accept that we are talking about a minority, anecdotally, there appears to be an increase in the number of people not sanitising their shopping trolleys and not wearing masks on public transport or in stores, and in the number of stores not having someone monitoring their entry points. What discussions has the Government had with transport operators and store managers on increasing customer awareness of those mandatory requirements? Does the Government have any data on non-compliance?