Seòmar agus comataidhean

I note that only 21 per cent of calls in August were about life-threatening conditions. Although I welcome the 100 additional call handlers, will the cabinet secretary consider reviewing the 999 and 111 call triage information technology systems to ensure that cases that can be dealt with by other services, such as out-of-hours GPs or minor injury clinics, are referred appropriately and are not sent an emergency ambulance? I stress that I am referring to the IT systems and not the call handlers themselves.

My question is not on that issue. I thought that we were on to general questions.

I am sorry, Presiding Officer. I thought that we were going to finish that question.

A fair work joint statement on Covid, which was agreed by the Scottish Government and organisations such as the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Scottish Trades Union Congress and the Institute of Directors, states—

I put on record my thanks to all working at the Borders general hospital and in primary care services across Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale, including GPs, pharmacists, those who work in the ambulance service and first responders.

I will focus my short contribution on the care sector, including those who deliver care at home and in residential settings. The horrid pandemic exposed as never before that care is a Cinderella service, with low pay and low regard. It is a service that is provided by people who serve and care for the most vulnerable in our society with kindness and skill. None of us in the chamber, or in general society, is innocent when it comes to taking those care professionals for granted. Therefore, I welcome the Feeley report, the creation of a national care service and the scrapping of non-residential care service charges. I was here in 2002, when we introduced free personal care for over-65s in Scotland, limited though it was. Such free personal care was not introduced in England. I was also here for the introduction of Frank’s law, which extended that care to the under-65s.

I was here when the integration joint boards were launched to ease the transition from hospital to home. That is an extremely difficult nut to crack, but a start has been made. Money was wasted—[Interruption.] Sorry, I have not got time to take an intervention; I only have four minutes.

I recognise the Fair Work Convention’s report into social care and the work to embed fair work principles for the social care workforce, leading to better terms and conditions.

I would like to see more publicity for existing college courses, through which someone can transition from the care sector to nursing in a way that means that professional progression is available.

In all this, the voice of the carers and those for whom they care must be not only heard, but heeded. Like many, I was extremely moved by the clap for carers on Thursday evenings, when the tenements around me echoed with cheers, the rattling of pots and pans, the blowing of whistles and even the occasional sound of the bagpipes. However, being moved is not enough, and I want to see more than recognition; I want to see pay that better matches the skills and commitment of those in the care sector and which recognises not only their duty to their job but that the job of caring for the most vulnerable is a vocation. That would be a good place to start.

For generations, we left much of the care of the elderly in residential settings to companies in the commercial sector, some of which were good, and some of which were bad, as was the case when local authorities provided the care. It is time that we made sure that our very elderly—I might have to declare an interest—are cared for properly when they come to the end of their years.

On cross-border vaccination between England and Scotland, the advice is that if someone lives in Scotland and they received their first, second or both vaccine doses outside Scotland but in the common travel area, which includes England, they should now be able to get proof of their vaccination status through the normal process online or by phoning the Covid helpline. However, when my constituents phone the helpline, they are told that they need to request proof of vaccination in England from NHS England. There seems to be some confusion here. Can the First Minister clarify the situation?

I honestly just seek clarity. Do you agree with the findings of the cross-party select committee—

As we are all aware, the situation is very distressing and costly for students who come from red list countries. I put on the record my thanks to the universities for stepping in with practical help.

Of course I appreciate that CTM was tasked by Westminster, and I understand the relationship with the Scottish Government’s international travel co-ordination team, which liaises with the CTM Westminster arm. Has there been any positive response? Are we any further forward for students who are anxious to start their courses?

I thank the members who supported my motion.

I commend the report by the United Kingdom Parliament’s Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, whose unanimous cross-party report along with the pursuit of this injustice by my colleague Owen Thompson, the MP for Midlothian, brought me to the debate. I add to that the Scottish Government, which wrote to the UK Government supporting the recommendations of the report.

As Penicuik, Gorebridge and Newtongrange, which were once at the heart of coal mining, are in my constituency, and as my maternal grandfather was a Welsh miner who died prematurely from injuries sustained in the pit well before I was born, I have a deep interest in what happens to miners and mining communities. In the 1980s, I witnessed the mounted police charging into men who were fighting for their livelihoods and communities.

I will provide a bit of historical context to the pension arrangements. They were put in place in 1994, when the mines were privatised. Since then, the UK Government has benefited from 50 per cent of the surplus in the funds, to the extent that—this is key—without contributing a penny, it has received £3.1 billion, and, in addition, £1.3 billion from the investment reserve. There is a further £1.9 billion in the pipeline—I have never seen a billion, but that is a lot of money.

The committee held an inquiry and unanimously recommended that the 50:50 split should be reviewed and, as an interim measure, that £1.3 billion should be redistributed to the miners. That humongous sum contrasts with the actual pensions that miners receive. The median is £65 per week, so 50 per cent of members receive less than that, while 25 per cent receive less than £35 per week and 10 per cent receive less than £18 per week.

At the metaphorical coalface of life and paying for everyday bills, many miners are on the breadline, while thousands, like my mother’s father, have been injured and died not even having enjoyed their pensions. It is estimated that 7,000 members die each year. It was an inherently dangerous job that by its nature led to poor health, and that is now compounded by susceptibility to Covid because of those underlying health conditions.

Against all that, it is an affront to justice that the UK Government creams off billions of pounds and has responded to the report with a rejection of all its recommendations. What is the justification? It claims that the guarantee that the UK Government will plug any deficit if the scheme is vulnerable to failure is a reasonable defence. The reply from Anne-Marie Trevelyan, Westminster Minister of State for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change, was:

“The Government continues to believe that the arrangement agreed in 1994 was fair and beneficial to both Scheme members and taxpayers. Scheme members have rightly shared in the benefits but the Government has taken on all the risk.”

The reality is that, even through the 2008 financial crisis and to date, the fund has thrived, as the free billions are harvested by the UK Government. Where is the evidence of risk, if any? Is it commensurate with a 50:50 split? The previous schemes assigned the surpluses at 70:30 in favour of the miners—the beneficiaries.

The UK Government has a sad track record in its attitude towards the miners, which, as I referenced, started with the brutal treatment of decent folk who were defending their jobs and communities. Of course, that was compounded by the recent remarks of Boris Johnson, when he said:

“Thanks to Margaret Thatcher, who closed so many coal mines across the country, we had a big early start and we’re now moving rapidly away from coal altogether.”

Those were crass remarks, but they were in keeping with the disdain for the coal miners and their communities and are now compounded by the rejection of a review of the pension scheme. Irony of ironies, the Westminster Government is now, controversially, considering opening a fresh pit near Whitehaven, where it will, of course, need coal miners.

That contrasts with the approach of the Welsh Assembly and of the Scottish Government, which is providing a pardon for miners who were convicted in the 1984-85 strike action in Scotland and has written to the UK Government to support the Westminster committee’s recommendations.

Whether or not members have a mining community in their constituencies, I urge them to pursue that with their MP and to support the select committee, shame the Government at Westminster and make it, for once, do right by the miners by accepting the unanimous recommendations of the cross-party select committee. After all, the Westminster energy minister offered a chink of hope when, in a letter of reply to Owen Thompson MP, she said:

“I am unable to accept the conclusions and recommendations. ... However I hope that as a result of my discussions with the Trustees we can reach a mutually acceptable way forward”.

I suggest that people get writing. Let us hope that those are not just easy words but that there are actions to follow, before more miners fall into penury and others die before they receive their pensions.

I beg your pardon, Presiding Officer—I should not have used the “you” word.

Does the member agree with the findings of the select committee, which had Conservative representatives on it? I commend the resilience and toughness of select committees at Westminster.

Regulation would be in the interest of any non-statutory advocacy services that is provided. It makes people sure that they are certified in and regulated for what they do. What they say would have weight and value. I do not think that it was deliberate, but in this case a narrative was brought in that could never be undone.

Parental alienation it is not unusual when spirits and passions run high in relation to contact with or residence of children. The issue between the parents becomes something that spills over and affects the children. It should not, but it does.

Regulation would be in the interests of those services. I cannot see the problem. We are regulated and must obey rules, which is just as it should be. The same thing should happen to non-statutory advocacy services.