I remind members of the Covid-related measures that are in place and that face coverings should be worn while moving around the chamber or around the Holyrood campus. The next item of business is a debate on motion 1803, in the name of John Swinney, on Covid recovery strategy. I call on the cabinet secretary to speak to and move the motion for around 10 minutes, please. On 5 October, I set out to Parliament the Scottish Government's Covid recovery strategy. The strategy sets out the Government's vision for recovery and our commitment to supporting those most affected during the pandemic. I very much hope that members across the chamber will support the strategy and the wider efforts of this Government to bring about a fairer future for the people of Scotland. As we look towards an uncertain and challenging winter period ahead, it is clear that the pandemic is not yet over. We must all continue to take the appropriate steps to keep ourselves, our loved ones and our communities safe. I warmly thank all those who are continuing to play their part to protect Scotland. However, because of the measures that we have taken to control the virus and the incredible success of the vaccination programme, life for many will feel much more normal than it has done for quite some time. As a consequence, while we continue to focus on responding to the pandemic, the Government is able to take the necessary steps to support and to enable a fair recovery from the pandemic. Presiding Officer, today I will set out how the Covid recovery strategy will bring about that fairer future, particularly for those most impacted during the pandemic. As I set out in my previous statement, the pandemic has dramatically affected every aspect of our lives. The Government has asked people to change where and how they worked, conducted business and socialised with friends and family. While the past 18 months have taken a significant toll on people across the country, there have been positive examples of collaborative working and people solving problems in creative and imaginative ways in all of the communities that we all have the privilege to represent. Alongside addressing the harms of the pandemic, the Government will learn and build on the positives that have emerged from the pandemic. While it is true that the pandemic has affected all of us and required much sacrifice from many, it is not the case that all have been impacted equally. The pandemic has highlighted and worsened inequalities across our country and, for many, the past 18 months have been incredibly challenging. People who were disadvantaged before the pandemic have been hardest hit during the pandemic. Those individuals—our neighbours, friends and constituents—were more likely to become seriously ill and, sadly, to die from Covid. They were the hardest hit socially and economically as a result of the necessary restrictions introduced to control the spread of the virus. People living in low-income households have been able to save less, have taken on more debt and have been significantly impacted by labour market pressures. Our children and young people have been affected through school closures and uncertainty about their learning, training and employment. We know also that many unpaid carers have faced added pressure during the pandemic, and it has been an incredibly difficult time for them. We are in regular touch with carer representatives, including carers Scotland, to make sure that we understand carers' concerns and can act accordingly. We have invested an additional £28.5 million for local carers support in this year's budget, bringing total investment in the carers act to £68 million per year. The pandemic has also resulted in an unprecedented shock to Scotland's economy and job market, and existing job market inequalities have been exacerbated with Brexit reinforcing inequalities. I am very grateful to the cabinet secretary for giving way. One of my concerns is that people look at the increase in vacancies and think that there are no employment issues, but does he acknowledge that it is possible to have both increasing unemployment and increasing vacancies because there is not an efficient interaction between those two factors? I can say that we have quite a bit of time in hand this afternoon, so you will be reimbursed for your time. I agree wholeheartedly with Mr Johnson, and I think that he makes a substantial point, which poses a challenge to Government and to a variety of institutions around the country to make sure that the interventions that we put in place can directly address satisfactorily the challenge that he puts. There are vacancies in the labour market, he will be speaking to businesses in his constituency, as I am in my own, and also around the country who are facing real challenges about vacancies. Equally, there will be individuals who will be unemployed. Mr Fraser and I discussed this issue in portfolio questions yesterday. People who are unemployed, some people may be furloughed, their jobs may come to an end, but they may not be ideally skilled to move into another sector. So our colleges, our institutions, our training interventions, the young persons guarantee, the transition training fund, all must be efficient and focused to address the issue that Mr Johnson fairly puts to me. I give him the assurance that the Government is constantly addressing those questions. In addition to that, we must also focus, and this is a point that I made to Mr Fraser yesterday, on people who are economically inactive in our society currently, who, with appropriate levels of support, assistance and perhaps additional public services, can be assisted to enter the labour market. The health secretary has regularly raised his concerns about the availability of the social care workforce, which is critical to ensuring that the demand for care packages in our community is satisfactorily delivered. I discussed with Jackie Baillie in Parliament in question time yesterday. We potentially can enable some of those individuals who are economically inactive to gain access to the labour market with the proper support that they require. Indeed, ministers were wrestling yesterday with some of the practical issues around wraparound childcare, which I recognise to be a significant issue. Minister who will close the debate will talk about some of the issues about housing supply, which are material to making sure that individuals can find the stability to enable them to enter the labour market. Mr Johnson makes a very fair point. Alex Rowley, I am grateful to Mr Swinney. I recently visited the Rapplock Centre in Stirling, directly funded through the Scottish Government. A brilliant project that is trying to reach those people who are most further away from the labour market, how do we start to ensure that we get more funding going directly into community organisations that are able to deliver the kind of successes that we are seeing from the Rapplock Centre? Mr Rowley puts his finger on an important point. The Rapplock example that he highlights is a perfect example of exactly the point that I have tried to make to Mr Johnson. I would also acknowledge that Rapplock-style centres do not exist in every part of the country. We have to make sure that best practice is shared around the country, that we are encouraging different institutions and community planning partnerships at local level to adopt those techniques, because the Rapplock Centre model is one that clearly assists individuals to enter the labour market with the necessary support. I give him the assurance that it is part of the wider Covid recovery strategy. We are trying to make sure that more of those interventions are available around the country to support individuals. We cannot return to how things were before the pandemic when some people, because of their income, their health, their disability, their race or their gender, were less secure and less able to protect themselves and their families from circumstances beyond their control. Our recovery from the pandemic must be focused on creating a fairer future for everyone. It is critical that we deliver the type of recovery that people want and need. During the summer, the Government heard from people that it wanted the recovery that addresses the harms caused by the pandemic, supports health and wellbeing and supports economic development and provides financial security. The Government has listened to the valuable messages that have been shared through the Citizens Assembly of Scotland and the social renewal advisory board. I am grateful to all who have shared their views and experiences so openly and honestly. The message is clear that the people of Scotland want a fairer future for all of our fellow members of our community. The message is central to the Covid recovery strategy. The strategy has a clear vision that will bring about a fairer future. We will address the inequalities that are made worse by Covid, we will make progress towards a wellbeing economy where our success is based on more than GDP and accelerate inclusive person-centred public services. The strategy details three outcomes that are central to achieving the vision of a fairer future. Those are to increase financial security for low-income households, enhance the wellbeing of children and young people and to create good green jobs and fair work. Those three outcomes are supported by an overarching ambition to rebuild public services, ensuring that they are person-centred in design and delivery, which is very much the point that Mr Rowley was making to me about the approach that is taken at the Rapploch Centre. There are already examples of public services being delivered in this way, and the Government's ambition is that every person in Scotland is able to access and benefit from public services in a way that meets their individual needs. A renewed and enhanced collaboration and partnership with local government, with business organisations and the third sector will be critical to achieving our vision. We must build on the spirit of collaboration, urgency and flexibility that characterised our collective response to the pandemic. The challenge that I have put to Government and that we are sharing with our colleagues and local government and business organisations and the third sector and our communities is that if we can move so fast collectively and collaboratively to tackle a pandemic that was a direct threat to the lives and livelihoods of all of us in March 2020, then surely we can deploy the same energy and focus to ensure that, in the tackling of poverty in our society and in the delivery of a fairer future, we can deploy the same collaborative energy to ensure that that can be done. The Covid recovery strategy details how the Government will work with partners to prioritise, co-ordinate and target actions most effectively over the next 18 months to meet the needs of the most affected during the pandemic. To ensure financial security for low-income families, we will roll out the Scottish child payment to children under 16 by the end of next year and double the payment to £20 a week per child as soon as possible in this parliament. We will also commence work to expand funded early learning and childcare to children aged 1 and 2 and design a wraparound childcare whereby the least well-off families will pay nothing and that perhaps can address some of the issues that Mr Johnson raised with me about supporting people into the labour market. To further reduce the cost of the school day, we will expand provision of free breakfast and lunches and increase the school clothing grant each year. To enhance the wellbeing of our children and young people, we will invest at least £500 million over this parliament to create a whole family wellbeing fund. This fund will provide universal and holistic support services that will be available in communities across Scotland, giving families access to the help that they need where and when they need it. We will also deliver our young person's guarantee by providing up to £70 million this year so that every person aged between 16 and 24 has the opportunity to study, take up an apprenticeship, employment or work experience. That will include targeted measures to support care experience young people, disabled young people and those from low socioeconomic groups. The Government will also provide £120 million of further funding through the mental health recovery and renewal fund, which includes increased support for child and adolescent mental health services. To create good green jobs and fair work, we will support the creation of more jobs through the green jobs fund and the green jobs workforce academy. The forthcoming 10-year national strategy for economic transformation will set out plans for strengthening Scotland's economy, recognising that a strong and sustainable economy goes hand in hand with a fair and equal society. The point that you make about a strong and sustainable economy is a really important one, I think, as we come out of the pandemic. The third sector employs and makes it about the same contribution in terms of employment and economics to the country as the NHS. On that basis, would you include the third sector, given what we have seen it being able to do at short notice and under pressure in the last year? Would you include them in the next Scottish Government economic strategy? Yes, is the short answer to Pam Duncan-Glancy. I am struck by the opportunities. I was just looking at some material on this the other day from some of our social enterprise organisations, for example, where some of the ideas there might be able to assist in the challenge of expanding the social care workforce that the health secretary has been clearly actively focused on addressing because of the reach of some of those organisations into our communities, delivering locally-based employment, which perhaps saves transport costs for individuals. I very much welcome that. I have just agreed to meet with Social Investment Scotland and Social Enterprise Scotland to continue some of the discussions that I greatly enjoyed with them when I was the finance secretary to establish just how they can contribute to the Covid recovery strategy. I look forward to those discussions. In drawing my remarks to a close, I would make one final point. That strategy must be viewed as a national effort and therefore requires collaboration. I have signalled in the strategy the willingness of the Government to work closely with our local authority partners. We intend to establish a joint oversight board with local government to share in the implementation and application of the strategy, not in any form of top-down approach but by engagement, collaboration, involving the third sector, involving the private sector to make sure that we put as much effort into tackling poverty and delivering a fairer future as we put into tackling a pandemic that was a threat to the lives of all of us. With those remarks, I move the motion in my name and I encourage Parliament to support the Government's Covid recovery strategy. Thank you very much indeed, cabinet secretary. Before calling our next speaker, I ask all those who are intending to speak in this debate to press the request to speak buttons now or as soon as possible. I call on Mordel Fraser to speak to and move amendment 1803.2 for around seven minutes. When the Scottish Government publishes a new strategy, the first question to ask all those is, what is new here? The answer to that question in this case is not a lot. We do have an extensive document running to 47 pages. There are a lot of re-announcements of existing policies, but very little in the document is new. Nor is there much in the way of timescales for delivery of many of the initiatives that are announced or have been re-announced. What should unite us in this chamber is a shared ambition, that we see Covid recovery as quickly and comprehensively as possible. In that respect, I very little would disagree with a lot of what the Deputy First Minister has just said. However, I want to focus on two key areas this afternoon, where I think that more needs to be done by the Scottish Government and that is a matter of urgency. The first area relates to the situation in the NHS, and that is covered in the strategy document. We have long argued that it is now well understood and agreed that the best route out of the current pandemic is through the vaccination programme. That is why it has been so important and that success up to now has been instrumental in allowing us to make progress and to relax restrictions. Yet it is undeniable that we are now seeing challenges with the vaccination programme. We learned this week that more than 100,000 people who should be now receiving their booster jag are still waiting. However, those boosters are essential, particularly in reassuring the older population that they are safe. Indeed, we heard earlier in the chamber at First Minister's question some examples of the situation that is happening on the ground. We heard that in the Covid recovery committee this morning, as well as examples of older people expecting to get the booster jag. I am very concerned that this has not yet been forthcoming. Today, we learned from NHS Fife that one-fifth of those living in that area, which I represent, one-fifth of those eligible for boosters and flu vaccine, aged over 80, has still to receive an appointment. That is a stark illustration of the point that I am making. Older people are worried. They have been told that they need to get this booster to give them that crucial extra protection over the winter months, and they are still waiting to hear when they will get one. That needs to be the focus of attention for this Government. That is only one aspect of the wider issues affecting the NHS. We are well understood at a crisis point in the NHS in Scotland, with hospitals bursting at the seams and record weights at accident and emergency departments. Again, we heard this week shocking statistics showing that there is now a weight, in some cases, of up to 40 hours at some hospitals for A and E admissions. Just this week, NHS Lothian was telling people not to attend A and E unless their condition was life-threatening. That is a really concerning line for the NHS to be putting out to the general public. How is any individual with a serious injury or with sudden chest pains supposed to know what they are facing falls in the category of being life-threatening? There is a real danger that lives could be lost as a result of that sort of messaging. If an elderly person falls over and breaks their ankle, their life might not be at risk, but clearly they are in a lot of distress, what are they then supposed to do? They then not mean to call an ambulance or to try to attend an accident and emergency. I thank the member for giving way. On the other side to this is, would he accept that the greater Glasgow and Clyde 32 per cent of those turning up at A and E were reckoned to have minor ailments? There is a bit of space for people not going to A and E. Murdo Fraser? I do not disagree with the statistic that the member has quoted. I am sure that it is accurate. The danger is that we are effectively asking people through an NHS board, through a public message, to self-diagnose. I think that that is really concerning, because there is a real risk that people who are actually facing a very serious injury or something life-threatening do not then attend A and E. I think that we need to be very careful of that message. I see Christine Grahame rising. I will give a way to her if I have time. Just very briefly, and it is not the be-all and end-all that I accept that, but the Scottish Ambulance Service has helped to put on its website guidance as to where to call if you have certain injuries. I am not talking about saying do not ever call an ambulance, but there is some guidance that if people are in doubt, they can check and it directs them to other services if necessary. I thank Christine Grahame for that intervention. I think that it is difficult to do all that. Often people will only see one message, so to see a message on social media, in this case from NHS Lothian, that is said to people, do not attend A and E unless your condition is life-threatening, and that is all they see. That is really concerning, and that is somewhere that the Government needs to be very clear about the message that is sending out to people, because we will end up with people in much worse health situations than otherwise would be the case, and lives might be lost. I am grateful to Mr Fraser to forgive me, because there is a substantial issue here where I hope that he understands that the Government and health boards have to say to people that there must be good and appropriate reason for individuals to use accident and emergency. It is not called accident and emergency departments for any casual reason, it is if people have had an accident or it is an emergency. There are many other aspects of healthcare available, so I encourage Mr Fraser to take a considered view about the point that both Christine Grahame and John Mason have been making as to the judgments that people should make about seeking the appropriate healthcare for the circumstances and difficulties that they face. I have said to Mr Swinney that that message is to be given to health boards such as NHS Lothian, who are putting out messages to people saying, do not attend A&E unless your condition is life-threatening. How are the public supposed to know what is a life-threatening situation? If somebody has chest pain, if somebody thinks that they might have the symptoms of a stroke, if somebody has a serious injury, how do you know if it is life-threatening? That is the message that the Government needs to take away. I have taken a lot of time on this, so I want to move on to talk about another important issue that is in relation to the economy and specifically support for business. Throughout the lockdown, we saw generous financial support to the business community, to the self-employed and to workers through the furlough scheme and other initiatives. We also saw extensive grant support now, mostly coming to an end as the economy recovers and businesses are allowed to reopen. However, there are still sectors of the economy under pressure. The introduction of the vaccine passport scheme, unique in Scotland and, unlike any other part of Europe, does not allow a negative Covid test as an alternative to a vaccine passport, as the price of entry, is having a negative impact on the night-time industry. According to the Scottish hospitality group this week, turnover is down in some premises by 40 per cent following the introduction of the vaccine passport scheme. There have been reports of a growing level of abuse towards door staff, some of whom are walking off the job as a result. I have taken three interventions, Mr Fairlie. Forgive me, I need to make some progress. I have made the case on numerous previous occasions to the Scottish Government that, if they want to have a vaccine passport scheme, they need to offer the alternative of a negative test. If they are not going to do that, we will continue to see a negative and substantial economic impact on businesses. Businesses who have already been suffering due to 18 months of restrictions and closures and then the Government need to be stepping up with financial compensation. Yesterday, in the budget, the chancellor announced an extension of rates relief for businesses in the retail, hospitality and leisure sector at the rate of 50 per cent for a further year across England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Yesterday, the Scottish Tourism Alliance called on the Scottish Government to follow suit, and I hope that it will. However, we also need to look at how those businesses directly affected by the vaccine passport scheme might be supported. There is a need to go beyond that in terms of wider support for economic recovery. I was surprised that, in the 47 pages of the recovery document, there is not one mention of the Scottish National Investment Bank, a flagship policy announced to assist with sustainable economic growth and now seemingly slipping down the radar. It is all too reminiscent of the much-vaunted public energy company, launched once with great fanfare and then delivering nothing. So what is the role of SNP in relation to Covid recovery? Should it not be there to address market failures in the provision of finance to all types of enterprises that deliver beneficial outcomes for the public good and for Covid recovery? For example, I have been engaging with the growth partnership, who are promoting social impact bonds, an innovative and imaginative initiative delivering real benefits for the public sector and helping to progress towards a wellbeing economy and yet struggling to attract commercial support. Groups in this sphere could benefit substantially from SNP support, but the present is unclear whether SNP has a role in providing that level of support. That is one clear area where the strategy is currently lacking and where it could be improved. In its remarks earlier, the cabinet secretary talked a lot about the role of the third sector in replying to an intervention from the Labour intervention. He has made it very clear that he has prized the third sector. Here is a very good example of a third sector initiative that could help with Covid recovery. It currently cannot, because it is not getting the support, and it could be getting support from SNP, and I hope that the cabinet secretary will look into that. I am well over my time to conclude. Where there is very little in the strategy that we would object to, overall it fails to meet the challenge before us, and particularly the immediate pressures that face our NHS and our economy. I move the amendment in my name. In 2016, within weeks of the election, the newly appointed education secretary published a plan for education, which set out a number of detailed milestones backed by detailed analysis of where we needed to improve our schools. Five years on, we have the same minister now in charge of Covid recovery, a job in every way more important, more urgent and more profound, yet the plan took months to publish. In my view, of those of those benches, less specific and, in some ways, less ambitious, and many, as Mr Fraser pointed out, of the initiatives contained within it, are simply repeats, not just from the election, but before the election. I say that because I prefer to believe that Mr Swinney is a serious politician, and this is a serious mission that he has been charged with. By his own yardstick, I do not believe that the plan is ambitious enough, nor it contains the detail that I think that route recovery requires. Furthermore, I do not believe that we have the recovery plans within portfolio areas of sufficient detail. What we have had so far is an education recovery plan that seems to commit to little more than glacial implementation of the OECD report. A health recovery plan is already in tatters. What we need is a recovery plan that reflects the time that recovery will take and the ambition that is required and the complexity of the potentially permanent impact that Covid has wrought on Scotland. That is fundamentally what our amendment seeks to do, because, like the Conservative benches, we do not fundamentally disagree with the Covid recovery strategy that is set out, but it does not go far enough. It does not have the concrete milestones or the concrete analysis. That is what is required if we are going to recover from the consequences of the pandemic. Without those specific actions, targeted actions, set out, I feel that the Government's motion is largely meaningless. There are three elements that are happy to us. I am sure that the member would recognise that the Scottish Government is fatally constricted by not having borrowing powers. When we are talking about a crisis such as this, not being able to borrow to grow the economy is utterly fundamental. Will he therefore join me in asking the UK Government to grant that? Daniel Johnson What I would say to Ms Thompson is that, even by the standards of our own Government, the plan does not go far or it contains the same level of ambition as the one set out for education in the previous current Parliament. We have the budget coming up in a matter of weeks, the processes around the fiscal framework. I am happy to have those debates, but there is scope within the envelope of the current Government to go further. There are funds announced in the budget just yesterday that have yet to be allocated. I think that there is sufficient scope to go much, much further and be much more ambitious than the plan that is set out by the Government. Let me set out three elements that we would seek to go further. First of all, as suggested in our amendment, we need to do much more to contain and suppress the virus. Through the autumn, Scotland had one of the highest infection rates throughout the whole of Europe. We must stop using the benchmark of the hopeless Conservative Government in Westminster because we know what works and we should be comparing ourselves to what other countries have been doing, such as Germany, who has had an excess death rate—roughly half that of Scotland—because they properly invested in testing and tracking trace. We must contain the virus by resourcing those systems to stop the virus in its tracks. Likewise, the vaccination programme has done an amazing job, but we must now redouble our efforts to complete it, taking jabs to where people are in schools, colleges and universities. Most important, and as Mr Fraser has already alluded to, we must recognise the severe challenges and issues in the booster programme and the flu vaccination programme. I have constituents who were vaccinated more than six months ago who have no idea when their booster is meant to take place. Likewise, constituents who are being asked to make two-hour round trips to get their flu shots. That, quite simply, is not only not good enough but is failing to learn the lessons of their vaccination programme in the first instance. Secondly, we must address the issues that are faced more broadly in our public services, because they are on the front line of dealing with the pandemic and are on the front line for delivering that recovery. However, the challenges that are faced by the health service are profound. We know, as has been pointed out by Lothian health board and from other areas, that this is being exacerbated by a lack of capacity. That is why, in our amendment, we have put forward the call for a plan for £15 per hour for care workers, raising their pay immediately to £12 an hour and working towards in the fullness of time and, rather, in short order, to that £15 an hour mark. That would boost recruitment, improve pay and secure conditions of care workers. It is a disgrace that those who are doing such an important job are being paid little more than pennies above the minimum wage. Thirdly, it is important to realise the economic impact of the pandemic. They are complicated. As I have already stated in my intervention, we can have both vacancies and unemployment. Indeed, 93,900 people are still on furlough when the scheme ended. Yet, the programmes that are already announced by the Government in terms of rescilling and retraining barely address a little more than a third of those people. We need to literally double our efforts to reskill and redeploy people. Entire sectors have changed permanently. Those people and those industries need action from government to transition. That is why we need to increase our provision for job creation schemes and retraining. We need to stop name checking recovery and start taking steps to deliver it. We need a clear analysis of what recovery requires, clear targets to track our progress and a defined timetable for delivery. We need a recovery that focuses on jobs and a recovery that reinforces our public services. I move the amendment in my name. We must put the recovery from Covid first. The pandemic has disrupted everything. Schools, shopping, weddings and Parliament have highlighted great existing divides in our society and it has made those divides worse. Worse yet, almost 10,000 Scots have lost their lives, leaving behind grieving families and broken friends. For some of us, it is hard to imagine the feeling of losing someone close due to Covid. For others among us, it is a reality. My constituents are still contacting me with long Covid symptoms and queries, still asking for financial assistance, given the impact on their business, still facing restrictions that impact their finances and entitlements as they travel to the mainland. Here, if I may, I will make a plea for an island-proof recovery. Throughout the pandemic, there has been frustration that island needs have appeared to have been an afterthought in some Scottish Government decision-making processes. Announcements made with the wealth of detail about restrictions affecting central belt communities often failed to include any mention of important differences for island communities working under different rules, and this created confusion. As we look ahead to dealing with the impacts of the pandemic and shaping the recovery, it is important that the work fully reflects the island's dimension too. We must make the country into a place that is unrecognisable from where we are. We need to repair the damage to our economy, communities and public services, a focus on jobs, mental health, our NHS, schools and the climate crisis, a liberal country where every individual is able to achieve their potential. As others have said, we have seen great uptake in the Covid vaccine programme in Scotland and across the UK, but we cannot be complacent. Having the vaccine does not mean that you cannot catch and spread Covid. Covid has had a significant impact on young people. Schools closed, qualifications disrupted, job prospects shattered, university, an exciting prospect turned into hotspot chaos, endless isolation and classes online. We must work hard to ensure that the Covid generation is not stuck with that label as an unfortunate description of lives were ever impacted. Recovery does not have to look like anything in the past. There has been time to think about what we want, time to assess what would be better, time to invest in ourselves. Let us invest in each other as well, investing in mental health treatment provision to be comparable with physical health treatment, investing in an education bounce back to allow the next generation to step forward, investing in our public services and thanking our front-line workers for all that they have done. Deputy Presiding Officer, we have shown what we can do when we all pull together. We stayed at home, we clapped in the street, but let us not lose that sense of community and common purpose. Let us make the next decade and beyond, be about not only what unites us but what makes lives better and fairer. Let us put the recovery first. Thank you. We will now move to the open part of the debate and I call on John Mason to be followed by Liz Smith. I will do four minutes, please, Mr Mason. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and thank you for the opportunity to speak today. The last 19 months have been difficult for everyone, but for some people they have been extremely difficult. It seems clear that certain groups in society suffered much more during Covid than others did, and, generally, those were people who were already disadvantaged in different ways already, for example the financially less well-off women, ethnic minorities, just being a few. As we seek to recover from Covid, we have the opportunity to do things differently, and I personally very much want to see a fairer society going forward. Most of us would probably say that we want that as well. However, I think that the question remains as to whether the majority of people throughout Scottish society are willing to pay the price that they might have to be for that. During Covid, people were willing to make a lot of sacrifices. They did not go on foreign holidays, they did not go out for meals, they did not shop as much, meet friends, family, work colleagues, because they understood that we faced an emergency. The question now is whether people are also willing to make those kind of changes to their lifestyles longer term. For example, it to accept fewer foreign holidays or not buying so many clothes for the good of the environment, and changes might also be required in order that income and wealth get shared around more equitably. Maybe some of us who are well paid, like all of us in here, need to make do with a bit less in the next few years in order that those with less can get a fairer deal. There are still many things that we do not know about the future. Will all the office workers go back to the city centres, or will they be working partly or entirely at home? The answer to that could mean that we need fewer shops and restaurants in our towns and city centres for those office workers, and we might need fewer commuter trains to take them there and back. Yesterday, we had the UK budget and the chancellor certainly seemed upbeat, and it is good that forecast unemployment seems to be lower and the economic recovery seems to be coming faster than many of us had expected less than a year ago. Inflation remains a concern as it has been rising, and we need to see if that is a temporary blip or if it is going to be longer lasting. We do not really know yet. My own gut instinct is that money is going to be tight in the next few years. We have already seen that Glasgow council and Glasgow life have lost a considerable amount of income because of the pandemic and so cannot afford to reopen all the services that they previously had. With railways, passenger numbers are still well down, meaning that the budget's income is just not there. Would you accept that Glasgow life has also made representations to the First Minister and to the Scottish Government asking for more money so that it can reopen the remaining libraries, for example, and make sure that it can reopen all the remaining services in Glasgow, and that so far it has not been given that? I accept that a lot of sectors, and that certainly includes Glasgow council, probably all other councils in Scotland, Glasgow life, the railways have all and are all needing more money. As is the NHS, that is what I am just going on to as well, to catch up with its backlog. It is great that we have a bit more money from yesterday's budget, but it will still be limited. We will have to choose priorities over the coming years. As I was just saying with the railways, its income is well down, and passengers are still only about 50 per cent. The Scottish Government cannot plug all of those gaps. It just is not possible. We are all sympathetic to those who have worked extra hard during the pandemic, put themselves at risk and, of course, we would say that many people deserve a pay increase in the NHS, local government, public transport and so on. However, the question still is where is the money to come for all this? As I said, the NHS has a backlog, and other sectors are probably going to need support for longer, as tourism and others take longer to get back to full strength. We are going to have to choose priorities in the coming years, and there are going to be some difficult decisions to make. Should the aviation sector return to where it was before and keep growing, or should we accept that in the longer term it should remain smaller? Immigration or the lack of it is a problem for Scotland. It is hard to grow the economy if the population is not increasing, and that has been a challenge for many years, not just because of Covid, but because the EU has made it worse. Overall, I think that we face many challenges in the coming few years. Some people want to go back to things the way they were before, because they were doing very nicely. However, I for one do not want to repeat of the past, and I do want to see a fairer and more inclusive society, and I believe that we can do that. The Deputy First Minister, Murdo Fraser and Daniel Johnson all said in their opening remarks that the key priority has to be on minimising the Covid threat and addressing the many other health issues arising from it, and that is absolutely right. However, I am just as certain as ever that the second priority of the public and indeed the Scottish business sector is to ensure that we have a strong economic recovery, one that is sustainable in the future, not just in the short term, and we have to be mindful that the predictions are showing that growth rates may well slow in that future. The good news is, as we saw from yesterday's budget, that the economic forecasts on growth just now are very much better than was previously thought might be the case. However, of course, just as the Chancellor said yesterday, that needs to be set against the inflationary pressures, the rise in the cost of living and the rise in national insurance charges, even if those are generally accepted, that they have a part to play in addressing the huge issue in health and social care spending, because those inflationary pressures are strong.  Growth is absolutely critical not just for jobs and investment and obviously tax revenues, but also to encourage greater economic optimism. Of course, one thing that would immediately provide some optimism is for the Scottish Government to continue to provide business rates relief for the retail and hospitality sector for the longer period of time. The Scottish Government was very generous in the last financial year, but it would be very good, Deputy First Minister, if we could hear what it intends to do now, because the overwhelming message from the retail and hospitality sector, and obviously from some of the witnesses that we have had at the finance committee, is that business continues to need very considerable support. Scottish Retail Consortium tells us that footfall is still 20 per cent below the pre-pandemic level and that serious questions remain about the viability of some businesses, many of which have incurred substantial debt burdens and obviously a difficult time for them whether they will actually continue in the future. That is why the Scottish Government's business waiver was very much welcomed, but it is something that I would urge them to concentrate on for the immediate future, because I think that it is something that business is crying out for. We have also been told by several key stakeholders that much more has to be done to stimulate local economies, which of course is the main reason why yesterday we had the levelling up programme, and it was very good to see more details about this coming forward yesterday. It was also very good to hear Kate Forbes on the radio this morning welcoming that funding, because this Parliament may be very united in its support for schemes like Scotland loves local, but for local economies to be truly successful, I think that a lot more has to be done, so I think that it is why those benches are persistently arguing for much more to be done to encourage our schools, our hospitals and other public bodies to procure much more local produce. I think that it was very interesting in yesterday's higher education rankings, which perhaps were interesting for their usual reasons, but they were actually very interesting because they were looking at the wellbeing a lot of the aspects of some of our universities, and it was very good to see two Scottish universities very high up the tables about improving local procurements, so I think that there are lots of lessons to be learned there. Of course, one of the biggest issues is very much about labour. Unemployment has not risen in the way that it was expected, and job vacancies are obviously continuing to be very high, but that tells us that there is a mismatch of skills and some problems about flexibility in the labour force, so I'm interested to hear what the Deputy First Minister was saying about education and skills. He's absolutely right, but I think that we need to know in much greater detail and much greater timing as to exactly what we're going to do because that is a crucial issue. Finally, the real critical issue is about the provision of greater certainty and stability, and I use those words because of the words that Kate Forbes said, when it comes to economic policy making to a much more coherent and holistic approach to that policy making and ensuring that Scotland remains fully competitive with other economies, most especially England, because we know from last week's export statistics just how that is so important. The Scottish Government, as it knows, was recently criticised for not listening sufficiently well to business whether that was about the broad scope of economic policy, the difficulties with vaccine passports or being able to access available support. That criticism focused on the weaknesses of detail, and that's one of the reasons why we're focusing our particular amendment this afternoon about that detail, policy timescales and some of the contradictions within Covid policy. Can I just say to members that, actually, we had a bit of time in hand and we've almost got no time in hand, and if you take interventions, which is entirely up to members, then it will need to be absorbed within the members' speech. I next call Christine Grahame to be followed by Pam Duncan-Glancy up to four minutes, please, Ms Grahame. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I refer to two planks of the Covid recovery strategy one, addressing the systemic inequalities made worse by Covid and the progress towards a wellbeing economy. Please go hand in hand in a socially just society from cradle to grave. Some policies are already in train. I applaud the focus in early years with substantial investment for learning in the broader sense, including free school meals. I applaud the £100 minimum grant for families for school clothing. That will help 120,000 families. The fact that no Scottish student pays tuition fees in comparison to England, where there are at least 9,000 per annumon for the elderly free personal care, and as we are propelled by Covid into national care service, which we know will not be easy, but the integration of health and social care was not easy, but it is a target that we must aim for. However, it is the term wellbeing economy that I wish to consider and ask rhetorically what does that mean? Is it regenerative development, a circular economy for the common good? I rather prefer the latter, which must also be for the good of the planet. Of course, we need to generate revenue to fuel government policies and initiatives, but the question is what matters is, how do we do it and for whose benefit and what is that benefit? Post-war, the UK Government upped its neck and debt, focused in the 50s on building social housing, infrastructure, broadening access to university, including free university education, which I benefit from, and basic health initiatives, all of which was front and foremost of policies of rebuilding, not just physically, but priorities after a devastating world war. That continued into the 60s, when there was a sense of egalitarianism, part real and part perception only. However, we have moved over decades to a society that, indeed, a UK economy predicated on consumerism, fuelled by cheap credit, and must have, throw away society, which has driven the gap between the haves and the have-nots wider. Post-war, post-pandemic, there are close parallels. UK debt is staggering. We still need social housing, infrastructure, number two many, the wherewithal for the basics of life and income to provide food and fuel. Food banks in 2021, folk not able to heat their homes, eat or heat, what an indictment on the priorities of successive UK Governments, quite indefensible and ironically accelerated global warming, as a detritus of consumerism fills our land and our seas. Growth cannot be simply for growth's sake. The built-in limitations of devolution prevent this institution from radically redirecting the priorities for Scotland's economy. There are lessons to be learned from the 50s and 60s, and I should know because I was there, but the biggest lesson of all is that only as a nation, with the economic powers that independence brings, can we in Scotland have that socially just society? Until then, all we can do, whoever is in government here, is mitigate, mitigate, mitigate. We cannot change the direction of Scottish society where it really wants to go. Thank you. I now call Pam Duncan-Glansy to be followed by Paul MacLennan. Up to four minutes, please, Ms Gansy. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I say to the member who has just spoken previously that when people say to me that I can't do something, I think it's because they can't see our potential, and we have a lot of potential here in Scotland to act—and I urge the Government to do all that we can to act to improve the lives of the people in Scotland. Deputy Presiding Officer, we are now 17 months on from the onset of the pandemic, and with every passing day, the extent of the damage done is becoming clearer. Cases continue to rise again, and it is clear that our fight is not yet over, but it's important that we look forward to the future, that the lessons that can be learned from the pandemic are used, and the rebuilding job that lies before us is big. For too many people, things were already impossibly hard before the pandemic, poverty and inequality rife, insecure and precarious work too common, and social care system on its knees. The pandemic has made, of course, all of these things worse. As we look to rebuild, we must use the opportunity that we have to harness the innovation that has been necessary this year and build on it to build a better Scotland than the one that we had before. To do that, it is vital that we don't just talk the talk on human rights, but put them at the heart of our recovery journey. We have talked in this chamber before about a land of opportunity, and while Scotland is not yet a land of opportunity for all of our fellow citizens, I believe that if we truly make that the focus and the aim of our rebuild, then we can get there. There is a moment in front of us, an unprecedented one, and all of us in this chamber have the opportunity to grasp it, and in doing so, create the Scotland where we can all enjoy our human rights and live up to our potential. We have all come through the collective trauma of the pandemic, living in lockdowns with restrictions on our freedoms, and none of us liked it. The truth is, though, that people in our country have been living with restrictions on their freedoms for years, and they have been blocked by barriers that we have so far failed to pull down—the poverty and oppression that have left disabled people, women, LGBT people, and people struggling to just get by. We came together as a country to fight back against the virus and to claim back our freedoms. Now we must come together to fight back against the deep poverty and inequality that is stopping our fellow citizens from claiming back theirs. Our vision for the future must be bold, and I support the three aims that the Government has set out today, but that means far more needs to be done to help us to realise those aims, and it means ambitious transformative action. I welcome that the Government has a plan, but it does not go harder fast enough, it is not bold enough and it is not ambitious enough. It will not make Scotland the land of opportunity that we all know it can be. Tackling systemic poverty needs sustained progressive action, that is why we have been calling on those benches for the Scottish Government to double the Scottish child payment immediately and again next year. Tackling poverty, I will. Christine Grahame, briefly please. I thank the member for taking intervention. I absolutely share every sentiment she has, but does she accept, without full economic power, power over jobs, power over benefits, power over taxation and borrowing powers, that we cannot really tackle systemic poverty as a consequence of successive UK Governments? I thank the member for the intervention. I do not agree, I am sorry. I actually think that we have a number of significant powers that we can use right here today in Scotland to challenge the poverty that numbers of our citizens are facing. We cannot allow our fight against systemic inequalities to go by the wayside either. If we want to begin to tackle those, we have to say equal pay enforced, workplace inequalities addressed and the GRA reformed. We can improve the lives of thousands of young disabled people by supporting a bill that gives them a fighting chance at future. Progression towards a wellbeing economy will require more than just words, too, and it will require ensuring payment of the living wage and procurement and business support, ending zero-hour contracts and closing the disability employment gap. It needs good, well-paid and unionised jobs through investment in areas like care. If we invest in our social care system—and that includes paying workers £15 an hour—we can create a person-centred health and social care service that values disabled people and workers' human rights and takes the pressure of Scotland's £1 million unpaid carers. We have an opportunity in front of us to support all those who can get into work and ensure that they are well paid, valued and supported to stay in work. For those who cannot, we build a social security system using all the powers that we have and all the levers that we have to create a minimum income guarantee that no one will fall below. The pandemic has been one of the worst periods of any of our lifetimes. It has provided us with a unique moment for change. Time to step back and look at how the people of Scotland want to live and live up to our full potential. Today, I ask the Government to be bold, do not waste the opportunity that we have and make the moment. I call Paul McLennan to be followed by Ross Greer. Up to four minutes, please. Thanks very much. I am delighted to speak in the debate this afternoon. I want to focus on, just like Christine Grahame, on how we move towards a wellbeing economy. I welcome the publication of the Covid recovery strategy. It sets out our priorities as we can recover from the pandemic. It allows us to take a step back and define what this Parliament is all about, what Scotland can be, what Scotland should be and it sets out our aspirations as a nation. Scotland, for many decades, has systemic inequalities made worse during the pandemic. The strategy, but more important, actions outlined will help us to make progress towards a wellbeing economy and move us towards more inclusive, person-centred public services by focusing on improving financial security for low-income households, supporting the wellbeing of children and young people and fair work. We have heard many comments about how we progress towards a wellbeing economy from all parties in the chamber since I was elected six months ago. I recently convened a first cross-party group meeting on the wellbeing economy, of which the wellbeing alliance of the secretariat opened an invitation to all MSPs to join us. I have had several fantastic meetings with Catherine Rebek, who was the founder. They have just published a paper on its called, Failure Demand. I am going to quote from the paper here. Of course, Governments will always need to be reactive to immediate needs. There will always be unavoidable demands on public spending. That is not in dispute. Their support is concerned with demands that are avoidable, damages incurred through economic choices, the purpose and structure of the economy. Only today, the OBR stated that Brexit would have a higher impact, a bigger impact than the pandemic. That was a political choice. I quote from the paper. Those are damages that necessitate deployment of our Government's financial resources, but which could be avoided in a wellbeing economy scenario. The report asks the questions. Is that the best we can hope for? Is it good enough just to help people to survive and cope with the current system? Are payments that allow us to survive all that we should be using our taxes for rather than investments and configurations that help us to thrive? The research focuses on key interlin sectors that illustrate the impact of financial resources of a state directly and indirectly. It finds that in Scotland, and this is due to the existence of low pay alone, the state provided nearly £600 million in 2014-15, £635 million in 2015-16, nearly £900 million in 2016-17, £840 million in 2017-18 and £775 million in 2018-19 in welfare payments, free schools and work-related ill health. The report seeks to demonstrate that taking a wellbeing economy approach also makes financial sense, reducing avoidable demands that the public spending has a longer-term positive impact. The Scottish Government has set out the steps that it will take to ensure financial security for low-income families. Rolling out the Scottish child payment to children under 16 vendors next year and doubling to £20 per week per child as quickly as possible during this parliamentary session. Expanded funding, early learning and childcare for children aged 1 and 2 and designing a wraparound childcare system to provide care before and after school. To improve the wellbeing of children and young people, the strategy also includes commitments to at least £500 million over the parliamentary section to create a whole family wellbeing fund, shifting to preventive interventions. The Scottish Government is committed to working with its partners in local government, the business community, health services, the third sector and our communities as part of an energetic national recovery endeavour. In closing, David Hume said that a wise man proposes his beliefs to evidence that the Scottish Government is doing so with this strategy. I now call Ross Greer to be followed by Stuart McMillan. Up to four minutes, please, Mr Greer. I understand why we use the language of recovery and rebuilding when discussing our response to the toll that the pandemic has taken on our society and economy, but I am not really convinced that captures what we are trying to do, because I do not think that our goal should be a return to what we had in March of 2020. I think that most, if not all of us, agree on that point. The pandemic has had a devastating effect on many people's livelihoods and the financial security of their families, but Scotland and the UK were blighted by the prevalence of insecure contracts and poverty wages before the pandemic. In sectors such as hospitality, our ambition absolutely must not be a return to the old normal, which is why growth in trade union membership should be a key indicator of success with those recovery plans. Financial security is, quite rightly, one of the primary objectives of the recovery strategy. Whether it unites hospitality branch or the four rail unions who have won significant victories in recent weeks, there is no doubt that the most effective tool at our disposal for creating a high-wage economy is a strong trade union movement. I am proud of the actions committed to in the shared policy programme agreed by my party and the Scottish Government, many of which will underpin the recovery strategy. I apologise for only four minutes, and I am only a speaker for my party. We are going to triple funding for the STUC's unions into schools project, a fantastic initiative that prepares young people for entering the workforce by letting them know their rights and what trade unions can do for them. On that point, I should refer members to my register of interests, specifically my membership of an STUC-affiliated union. We are also going to expand family income maximisation and other advice services that will build on the success of projects such as healthcare welfare children in Glasgow and the fantastic work of NHS Wodden. Those projects will help some of the lowest income and most at-risk families to make full use of the social security and other support services that they are entitled to, but which many are not aware of or do not know how to access. As the business minister announced earlier this month, we will use the powers available to us to directly address the issue of low-pay. Although we cannot yet set minimum wage rates here in Scotland, we will require the many thousands of businesses who receive support from the Scottish Government or provide services via public procurement contracts to pay their staff at least the real living wage. The private sector has received unprecedented public support over the last 18 months for obvious and understandable reasons, but businesses should not expect to receive public money or contracts if they are simultaneously forcing government through the social security system to subsidise the poverty wages that they pay their staff. If we are to achieve the objective of good green jobs and fair work, more of this kind of interventionist economic policy will be required. One policy that does not appear in the recovery strategy paper but which makes for an excellent example of how we will meet its headline objectives is the introduction of free bus travel for young people. It is not technically a Covid recovery initiative because we had agreed to do it during budget negotiations in early 2020 before the pandemic hit us, but for obvious reasons its launch was delayed. Now scheduled for January 31, the scheme will provide considerable economic, social and environmental benefits. It will expand young people's access to the workforce simply because it will be easier for them to get to where the jobs or training opportunities are. It will reduce the financial burden for low-income families who are disproportionately reliant on buses and it will shift more journeys from private cars onto those buses, helping to meet our climate and local air quality targets. I encourage the Government to consider how the strategy and its headline objectives align with the national performance framework. I highlighted to the Deputy First Minister a few weeks ago that the NPF contains almost nothing on transport, for example, but a significant shift in transport policy is essential if we are to meet the Covid recovery objectives, our climate targets and much more besides. The upcoming review of NPF indicators is an opportunity to better align the framework with the Government's strategic priorities. The recovery cannot mean returning to an economic system that left one in four Scottish children in poverty and which has brought our planet to the brink of catastrophe. The strategy makes for a strong start, but I encourage colleagues in the Government to consider at every stage if they can go further and faster. Given what is at stake, an overly cautious approach would be a far greater threat to our shared objective of a greener, fairer society. I call Stuart McMillan, who is joining us remotely to be followed by Douglas Lumsden, up to four minutes, please, Mr McMillan. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I'm pleased to be speaking in this debate and to welcome the Covid recovery strategy. It's undeniable that Covid is the greatest challenge of our time. Living with, dealing with and also the recovery from it has and will provide us with a continual changing policy platform, and I state that solely as a factual point. Like others, I'm sure that MSPs from across the chamber will have heard people saying that they are looking forward to life getting back to normal as it was before the pandemic for me and certainly from some other MSPs today. Recovery must go further than that. It must go further than how life was before Covid. This Covid recovery strategy will help to do that by working with local government, the third sector and also businesses large and small. Another strategy is focused over the next 18 months. It also includes a series of actions over the course of this Parliament to make significant progress towards net zero, deliver substantial reductions in gel poverty and also secure an economic recovery that is fair and green. Those who are already the most disadvantaged have suffered disproportionately. They have been more likely to get seriously ill, more likely to be hospitalised and, sadly, more likely to die from Covid. They have also been the hardest hit socially, educationally and economically by the restrictions that were brought in to control the spread of the virus. For many people, the disadvantages that they face have been made worse by the pandemic. Our recovery must be about how we make life better for them. Yesterday, I asked the Deputy First Minister about his recent visit to the Bello community garden trust in my constituency. His reply was extremely positive. I know how essential Bello will be to many people, as were other local organisations and MSPs from across the chamber, who will be able to point to examples in their constituencies and regions. However, it is clear that my constituency went through some particularly stark challenges in the earlier part of the pandemic. The community was rather drowned. The joint working of all the partners was immense and we as a community are stronger for that joint working. Some of the social and economic challenges that my community faced before the pandemic haven't went away. The recent SDS report indicated that our economy will not fully recover until 2031, which is later the neighbouring local authorities. That is why this strategy is an important first step. A strong, sustainable economy goes hand-in-hand to fair in eco-society. I am pleased that this understanding will be at the centre of the new 10-year national strategy for economic transformation, which the Scottish Government will publish later this year. I look forward to reading that strategy when it is published. However, some of the actions in the Covid recovery strategy will certainly help my community, such as investing £200 million in adult earth skilling and retraining opportunities to help to retrain and reskill workers in areas of the economy, particularly impacted by the pandemic and the transition to net zero, including helping low-income families most at risk of experiencing poverty with £8.65 million for the Parental Employability Support Fund in 2021-22 and at least £15 million across 2022-24. Also rolling out the Scottish child payment to children under 16 by the end of 2022 will be hugely beneficial. I could go on because there are many positive examples in this strategy. One thing that I would like to say before I finish. I know that this strategy cannot be helpful for my Greenock and Invercly constituency. I know that it will help many, many people, but it is crucial that the roll-out of it has to be done properly for that to happen. I am happy to support it, and I will support it. I am happy to ensure that many people in my constituency benefit from it. Thank you very much. I refer members to my register of interests, which shows that I am still a member of Arbenin City Council. I welcome the debate on Covid recovery, but it is important to acknowledge that those working on our front-line services are still under a huge amount of pressure as a result of Covid. They do not yet feel that they are in recovery phase nor do they feel that they are being supported or valued by the devolved Government. We are all aware of the pressure that care workers and NHS staff are continuing to work under. Hospitals are at capacity, three health boards have support from the British Army and NHS Grampian have requested support, but we are waiting for that request to be passed on by the Scottish Government. The SNP Scottish Government and the Cabinet Secretary for Health are failing, are sick, are vulnerable and are infirm. It is only the passion and share commitment to public service of our NHS workers that is keeping our hospitals and health boards afloat. There is little in this recovery strategy that tells us how the Government is planning to deal with the recovery within our NHS. Little detail on waiting times or cancer treatment times, nothing on A&E waiting times and nothing on how we are going to tackle the situation of crisis within our ambulance service. NHS boards are telling people not to come to hospital unless it is life threatening. The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport has asked in Scots to think twice about calling an ambulance. What are people supposed to do and where are they supposed to turn? The strategy document has some nice words, but after reading the document, I am left with more questions than answers. An example of that is on page 4 of the strategy. It says that it will address the systemic inequalities that are made worse by Covid. I have been contacted by a family who has a son at school and who is deaf, and there are over 3,800 deaf children in Scotland. Deafness is not classed as a learning disability, yet a significant attainment gap continues to exist for deaf learners. The latest Scottish Government data shows that last year, 6.5 per cent of deaf learners left school with no qualifications, compared with 2.4 per cent of all pupils, and 45 per cent obtained highers, compared with 59 per cent of all pupils. The continuation of the use of face masks in our schools disproportionately affects this group of learners and risks increasing the attainment gap that already exists. I see nothing in the strategy that tells us how that inequality will be addressed. I plead with the Cabinet Secretary to look at ways of addressing the issue before more deaf children are left behind. Please do not laugh, but I nearly fell off my seat when I was reading about partnership working with local government. Of course, the Scottish National Party Government definition of partnership working with local government is telling them what to do, when to do it and that is not a partnership. When the devolved Government introduced our botched vaccine passport scheme, it was left to local authorities to enforce it. No debate, no discussion, just go and do it, and that is not partnership working. Aberdeen City Council has been left with a £6 million hole in their finances due to the devolved Scottish Government delay in payment of money that they asked Aberdeen to distribute to businesses during the pandemic, £1 million of which has been due since the First Minister imposed an unjustified local lockdown in August 2020, and that is not partnership working. That is an absolute disgrace, and the cabinet secretary should be ashamed as that directly impacts on the council's ability to deliver key services to its communities. The cabinet secretary comes today with some warm words but offers no direct action, some ideas but no concrete proposals, nothing that will help my constituents in Aberdeen, the businesses in the northeast, the most vulnerable in our schools and our NHS. Every single group has been let down by the devolved Scottish National Party Government, despite the UK Government plowing billions into their coffers. We need more than warm words from the cabinet secretary to tackle our recovery from this pandemic. We need direct action and we need it now. I now call Jim Fairlie, who will be the last speaker in the open debate. I am very pleased to be speaking in today's debate, but I have to say that, once I read the Tory amendment to the Scottish Government's motion last night, I became quite concerned. Not I hasten to add because I saw something in there that was uncharacteristically supportive of the Government. The amendment is predictably negative, lacks the understanding of the reality of what it takes to govern effectively in Scotland's devolved Parliament during a worldwide pandemic, and yet, as always, it completely fails to recognise the good work that the Scottish Government has done, in particular Nicola Sturgeon in leading us through the pandemic. However, it should come as no surprise, of course, because, since the election campaign, it made it quite clear that it had no hope or expectation, let alone intention, of trying to win and form a Government, so folk may be forgiven for asking what was their point of standing, if their only objective was to run along the sideline, shouting offside. No, my concern was for my fellow member of the Covid Recovery Committee, Murdo Fraser, and whose name this amendment appears. It would appear from the terms of the amendment that he was clearly very confused about which Parliament he was a member of, given his demands for the roll-out of more fibre optic broadband. Just because the Scottish Government has already invested through over 600 million in broadband roll-out, it is a reserved matter and, once again, the Scottish Government is mitigating Westminster neglect in Scottish communities. I am pleased to report that, when I saw him this morning in the aforementioned Covid Recovery Committee, he was indeed his usual abeliant self, insightful in his own muddle way, and very clear of thought. I have concluded that there was no need to worry about him. He was genuinely confused by lodging this amendment in this Parliament. It is now clear that, simply using the old tried and tested Tory trick of failing the Scottish people so abysmally, that the Scottish Government then has to spend hundreds of millions of pounds in mitigating that failing, only for the Tories to then come back and accuse the Scottish Government of not doing enough. Where I a teacher, I would be issuing Mr Fraser with punishment homework tonight and telling him to write out the following 100 lines. Telecommunications is a reserved matter, and we in the Tory party are grateful to the Scottish Government for spending over 600 million to mitigate a UK Government failure to provide properly funded roll-out of broadband, and we will stop trying to mislead the Scottish people with those kind of false claims. Perhaps after Mr Fraser has finished those lines, he will be finished with the hypocrisy of criticising the Scottish Government for sorting out many of the Westminster failings that continue to hurt the people of Scotland. I wonder if I can gently remind Mr Fairlie that the delivery of broadband services in Scotland is a devolved matter under the responsibility of the Scottish Government. Telecommunications is a reserved matter. I then read the amendment in the name of Daniel Johnson. I can sympathise to the extent that the intent behind that amendment, again, as Labour amendments often do, fails to recognise the realities and the constraints of a devolved Parliament with a fixed budget. I would urge the Labour benches to look at their continuing depletion of seats in this place and their near extinction in the other place and conclude that, if they ever want to be taken seriously as a political force again, that shifting their dial on the democratic right of the people of Scotland to decide their constitutional future might just be the start that they need to change the fortunes of their failing party. However, do not let it be for one second thought that I am trying to give the Labour party any advice. I am simply saying that Len McCluskey agrees with me. On a more serious note, we have learned some tragic lessons coming through this pandemic, not least of all how incredibly fragile we can be when nature decides to turn on us. That fact should be at the forefront of the minds of every world leader when they attend COP26 over the next fortnight. The Deputy First Minister has already laid out some of the very positive things that are going to come forward in this strategy. Many of my colleagues have also talked about the good things that are coming, and I would endorse all of them. However, as we have learned so much about this pandemic, we have also learned bits about ourselves. When the will is there, we can do things that make things happen at pace and without reservation. Rough sleeping was eradicated because we had to do it, so we did. The Scottish Government's Covid recovery strategy is an excellent start in allowing the people of Scotland to see a new beginning, and I support it in full. As Murdo Fraser, Daniel Johnson and a few others have said, the Covid recovery strategy is very little that you would disagree with in terms of that. Likewise, the motion put forward in the name of the Deputy First Minister. That is why we have deliberately put an amendment on to the end of that, because we think that it needs to be firmed up and we need some commitments. I hear Jim Fairlie talking about fixed budgets, but in terms of the social care, we have the health secretary say to me at the Covid recovery committee a few weeks ago that a large amount of the money that is going into the health service will go into health and social care. As Daniel Johnson rightly said, the budget announcements yesterday, regarding what you think of them, will mean significant more funding coming to Scotland to be able to be prioritised equally into social care. The bafflin thing for me is that why would you put all those resources into social care and not tackle what is the fundamental problem within social care, which is low pay? I would just scribbl on down there that if men were carers, they would be paid the rate for the job, but as engender, often point out, majority carers in Scotland are women and they are paid well below the rate for the job. We bring forward this amendment today in all seriousness, because we believe that unless you tackle the issue of poor pay and lower pay in social care, the recruitment and the retention problems that exist within social care are going to continue. I acknowledge the line of argument that Mr Rowley is pursuing, but would he also acknowledge that the Government has taken steps in recent weeks in the announcements on the health secretary to improve the pay of social care workers and that it is an issue with which we are actively involved in discussions with our local authority partners? Alex Rowley? What I would say is that the steps that have been taken while welcome are not enough and we will not tackle the problem, and it will take the Scottish Government to step up and say that it needs to introduce a national pay scale for all social care workers, and through doing so, I believe that we can start to tackle the recruitment and the retention problems. It is not just me that says that. The Scottish care is among many people who are now singling out low pay and social care as their key issue. Let us think up for a moment the impact that that is having, because I know in Fife that waiting lists for people who have been assessed in the community is needing a care package but not able to get one. Those waiting lists are going up month by month. Those are people that are in the community that, if they do not get the support to live in the community, they will eventually end up not on the door of the hospital. We then know that there are 1500 individuals who are stuck in hospitals right now that cannot get out of hospital. There is no medical reason to be in hospital but they cannot get out because they cannot get a care package in the community. As I say, the fundamental, the key issue is that people who are working in social care are not being paid the rate for the job. We will not be able to recruit and retention will get worse. I say to the Deputy First Minister that if you want our support for much that is in here and you will get that support, you need to look seriously and the Government needs to look seriously at tackling the problem of low pay and not paying people the rate for the job in social care. If we can address that and we do not have two, three years for a national care strategy or a national care service, that has to be addressed now. Thank you for additional time, Presiding Officer. That is the plea, address social care, increase the pay, not because it is desirable to do so but it is essential if we want to tackle social care issues in this country. I would like to begin by summing up by speaking of some of the excellent speeches that we have heard. My colleague Murdo Fraser speaks of how much of the strategy is new and I agree that almost nothing is new but very slightly tweaked. An example of this is the previous target to build 100,000 homes but that is tweaked to 110,000 homes now. There was also a lot of debate about patients being asked not to attend A&E unless they are suffering from life-threatening conditions. The worry is vague symptoms. Having voided yourself after some minor back pain, now this isn't life-threatening but this could be quadruquina and that is time sensitive. We must be very careful with what we say, be nuanced and give clear alternatives. It cannot be self-diagnosis. Daniel Johnson spoke of patients struggling to get their boosters, of course. I am grateful to Dr Gilhane for giving way because, in the words he said there, I couldn't agree with him more because what he said is what I was saying in my intervention to Mr Fraser. There are alternatives to appearing at accident and emergency that people should pursue that are well advertised so that it is not self-diagnosis that I am arguing for. I am arguing for people to be able to use the different alternative routes that are available to avoid presenting at accident and emergency. I wish NHS Lothian bought had said that as well because that is what I mean about being nuanced and giving out that information. Daniel Johnson spoke of patients struggling to get their boosters because of long journey, something that I have asked the cabinet secretary for health previously about. Patients I know, the most vulnerable in our society, are waiting two or three hours in the cold and the wet to get their boosters. Some arrive to a closed vaccination centre. We must do better. John Mason spoke of truth about ethnic minorities being disadvantaged by Covid, but I then question why he supports the Covid vaccine scheme, which creates almost a second class of citizens. Those from ethnic minority backgrounds are most skeptical of having vaccines and the vaccine passport can further entrench their position and prevent them from engaging in normal Scottish life. My colleague, Dungs Numson, makes an important point when he talked about how being deaf has led to a wide entertainment gap. That is simply not good enough in our modern Scotland. Liz Smith spoke eloquently about the importance of a strong economic recovery, and strong economy leads to having money to spend. Having money to spend allows us to fund vital services such as our NHS. A Covid recovery strategy for Scotland should have at its heart a credible roadmap that delivers sustained recovery of our NHS. There will be no Covid recovery unless our trusted NHS nurses, paramedics, doctors and support staff are resourced and supported. My colleagues join the medical profession to deliver a world-class public service. They are now at breaking point. According to October's understanding Scotland survey by the Diffley partnership, the NHS is our country's most trusted institution. Conversely, the Scottish government is amongst the least trusted institutions. This untrusted government is failing the NHS and failing families across the country. We know that Scotland's health service was in crisis before the Covid pandemic. Scotland's health service is now in peril under the watch of the SNP Green Government. It is no wonder that just six months into a new Parliament trust has hit a rock bottom. On our NHS, we have heard many statements, reassurances, promises of money, but where are the improvements? Where are the innovations? What are the timelines? In this chamber, regardless of our party membership, we would not be doing our job if we do not call this out. A&E waiting times continue to fall short of government's own targets. Public Health Scotland stats for this week, ending 17 October, show that 7,000 Scots were left waiting for more than four hours for A&E, 1786 waiting eight hours and 515 patients half a day. This week, Edinburgh's flagship hospital was so overwhelmed that there was not a four-hour wait for treatment but 40. Let us also consider Ambulance Service, whose exhausted crews are under sustained pressure working up to 10 hours without a break. Of course, I am happy that the Cabinet Secretary for Health listened to my proposals to support specialised treatment for those suffering with long Covid. It is a good start. We can even say that this is a victory for patients. Mind you, more needs to be done on this front, and I look forward to working constructively with the Scottish Government on this. I urge the Government to grasp the opportunity to recover from the pandemic, to be bold and innovative in its thinking. In healthcare, we cannot just tinker around the edges. Scotland's healthcare needs are growing, and we do not have enough staff. We cannot conjure staff up. It does not matter how much money you pledge to it. We can get staff from overseas, of course. I understand that the UK Government is keen to relocate the best global talent in science to our shores. Organisations such as Vapio provide a fellowship programme for doctors to work here in Scotland. I am pleased to say that the First Minister agreed to look into urgently after I raised this to her. More doctors are not the only solution. People are the NHS's most valuable asset in terms of cost and skill, so the Government should optimise our use of this valuable resource by changing our system so that highly qualified doctors and nurses are not burdened by tasks that can be carried out by other means. That means redesigning our clinical pathways and deciding how we evaluate and deploy medical technology. I also see little in the way of details of how patients will move through primary care. I have proposed already in this chamber that the Government focus on recruiting anesthetists, as the shortage is causing a bottleneck. I would like to offer another solution that many GPs will welcome, and that is faster internet. Accessing patient data can be time consuming, and we simply do not have time to spare. GP surgery should have ultra-fast broadband. 200 megabits per second should be standard. It is clear that we have a long way to go in our recovery. We need clear plans for our NHS, our schools and our economy, but we need to increase our NHS workforce with a clear plan. We need to act now to future-proof our NHS infrastructure. We need to ensure patients get the help that they deserve here in Scotland. I refer members to my registered interest as a practicing doctor. I now call in Patrick Harvie, Minister, to wind up for the Scottish Government, if you could take us to decision time. It is still a relatively new experience for me to end a debate with all of my notes about the member's speeches that I would like to respond to, as well as a speech that has been written for me. I am not going to have time for both. I am going to have to let someone down, so I will give my apologies to those members that I do not mention, and to the officials if I do not use all the words that they have provided for me. Obviously, it is always important at any time, but more so at a time like this, as we face recovery from a historic pandemic, that opposition—in fact, all MSPs urge the Government to go further, to go faster, to be bolder—that is absolutely as it should be. However, I was really heartened by the number of speeches today that show that, while we may have our differences, many members do not want us to be distracted by those differences. They do not want those differences to prevent us from walking together where we can, being bold and taking a transformational approach at this agenda. In the closing speech from Labour, from Mr Rowley in particular, I hope and I believe that every member, regardless of political parties, wants us to go further and go faster on the issues that he mentions, including valuing properly the historically undervalued care work in our society in just a moment that is so critical to us. He welcomes the work that has been done on that. I welcome the passion that he brings and other colleagues bring to the topic. That topic is best advanced by bringing forward credible, workable and costed proposals for achieving just that. I hope that the Labour Party will do that, rather than an uncosted £1.8 billion proposal in an amendment to debate, but there is work that we will be able to do on that if we choose to work together. Daniel Johnson? Mr Harvey accepts that it has been costed by his civil servants because I have been in a meeting where they took me through the numbers. Will he support not just the implementation, but it is not even as ambitious as that, but just a plan for implementation of £15 an hour for care workers? Will he vote for it? I think that Mr Johnson knows that when we say costed, we mean where the money is coming from, not just where it is going to. We will aim to work together, but we have a budget ahead of us. We have a national care service bill ahead of us, and those are places where we will continue to make progress. However, I want to emphasise the scale of opportunity that there is to make some of the change. Whether it is on financial security for low-income households and the actions that the Government is taking on public transport costs, as several members mentioned, on school meals, uniforms, rent and housing affordability, and Christine Grahame mentioned some of the work that has been done right throughout the existence of this Parliament on taking a universalist approach on issues such as social care and higher education. Those are all measures that will help to address affordability and financial security. There is so much more that we need to do. However, Christine Grahame then went on to challenge us all in questioning what we mean by wellbeing. She challenged us all to be ambitious to take the approach that the post-war generation did—an opportunity to move beyond what she described as today's unsustainable, consumerist growth-for-growth-sake economy. That is the scale of ambition that we should have. That is the scale of ambition that we should capture as we seek to build a wellbeing economy. Pam Duncan-Glancy, in what I thought was also an excellent speech, talked about harnessing the innovation that has been necessary due to Covid and described that as an unprecedented moment of opportunity. I agree, and I hope that that is a spirit that we can all seek to capture while acknowledging our other differences on many issues. Pam Duncan-Glancy's description of marginalisation and inequality as a form of lockdown was very important. The reality, the recognition that the freedoms that were lost as a result of Covid or restricted as a result of Covid were not equally shared freedoms in the first place. If we want to overcome that, we need to do what the Government wants to do as its second core objective of Covid recovery of placing the wellbeing of children and young people as the priority. I am moving on to fair work and good green jobs. A number of members have mentioned that. In particular, there will be a great deal more work as members know that the Covid recovery strategy is not a standalone document. It will connect with many others, including the national strategy for economic transformation. I reassure my colleague Ross Greer that we are not seeking a return to the old normal. He is right to question whether recovery is not always the right word, but the national strategy for economic transformation will be focused on just that, on transformation. He is right that the review of the national performance framework is another opportunity to address that. There will be aspects of that, which I hope to cut across the political spectrum. Liz Smith was right, for example, to raise issues in relation to retail and hospitality sectors. There will be a retail strategy coming as due quite soon, and I hope that members across the spectrum will engage with that. However, it has to be one that recognises that retail and hospitality are industries that have suffered from very deep long-standing problems of poverty wages, of insecure incomes and of low rates of unionisation. Those are the conditions that lead people to have precarious lives, just in the same way that precarious housing does and the actions that the Government wants to take in relation to tenants' rights and the rented sector strategy that will be coming soon. I hope that we will certainly aim to address those issues of precarious living. Thank those members who have engaged with the debate in a sense of trying to capture that shared moment of opportunity. Challenging us as the Government absolutely to go further, to go faster and to be bolder. Keep doing that. I do not have to urge you to keep doing that. I know that all members will. However, the Covid recovery strategy sets out a clear, ambitious vision for Scotland's recovery from the pandemic. We will focus on the people who have been affected most by the last 18 or so months, increasing financial security for those low-income households, enhancing wellbeing of children and young people, and creating good green jobs and bare work. I hope that all members across the spectrum share those three goals and want to help the Government to go further and to go faster. Central to the recovery from the pandemic is our Government's focus on achieving those three goals, because that is the future that Scotland needs, that is the future that Scotland deserves. I believe that, together, we can and will ensure that Scotland can achieve it. That concludes the debate on Covid recovery strategy. It is now time to move on to the next item of business. On 5 October, we had a member's debate on big noise western hails. Unfortunately, the Cabinet Secretary for Constitutional Affairs and Culture, who was meant to be responding to the debate, did not turn up until the last speaker was speaking. He was then encouraged by the Deputy Presiding Officer to watch the debate back and write to all members who took part on the issues that were raised in their speeches. I have received nothing. Standing Order 7.3.1 states that members shall at all times conduct themselves in a courteous and respectful manner and shall respect the authority of the Presiding Officer. First, I ask through ignoring the advice of the Deputy Presiding Officer to write to members if Mr Robertson has breached the Standing Order. Secondly, what your ruling is on the disrespect shown by the Cabinet Secretary to members who wish to debate the issues properly, but could not do so due to the lack of his attendance? I thank the member for his point of order with regard to the fact that the Cabinet Secretary has not written to Mr Lumsden. I am certainly sure that the Cabinet Secretary will be made aware now that the member has not yet received a response, and I would hope that our response will now follow. I would certainly hope that all members who were taking part in that debate that evening have received such a response. On the second point, the Presiding Officer who was in the chair at the time dealt with the issue and received an apology from the cabinet secretary, and the cabinet secretary made an apology in person at that time to all members who were in the chamber. He has subsequently also written to me and apologised for his error, which is certainly one that I would not want to see repeated again. However, the member is absolutely right at all times that all members of this Parliament must treat one another with the greatest courtesy and respect. Thank you very much Presiding Officer. I wish to raise the point of order about the First Minister's response to my question about NHS Inform's national vaccination booking system. Can I apologise to you for the short notice of the point of order? The First Minister told this chamber that it was fixed. My constituents' family were delighted. They phoned NHS Inform this afternoon. The system is still broken. The operator told them not to call back until Sunday, but they did not know if it would even be fixed by then. The First Minister may want to correct the record to avoid giving misleading information to the Parliament, but can I ask? Can somebody in the Government tell us when the system will actually be fixed? I thank Ms Bailey for her point of order. Ms Bailey will know that the content of members' contributions is not a matter for the chair, but that a mechanism exists by which members can correct any inaccurate information that has been shared in the chamber. I thought that I heard another point of order. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 1847, in the name of George Adam, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau, setting out a change to next week's business. Any member who wishes to speak against the motion, please press the request to speak button now. I call on George Adam to move the motion. No member has asked to speak against the motion. The question is that motion 1847 be agreed or we all agreed. The next item of business is consideration of parliamentary bureau motion 1848, on approval of an SSI. I ask George Adam, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau, to move the motion. The question on this motion will be put at decision time, and there are four questions as a result of today's business. The first is amendment 1803.2, in the name of Murdo Fraser, which seeks to amend motion 1803 in the name of John Swinney on Covid recovery strategy be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, therefore we will move to vote, and there will be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system.