Written evidence submitted by the Perth and Kinross Association of Voluntary Service (PKAVS) (COR0008)
Established in 1972, PKAVS is an award winning charitable organisation, supporting over 5,000 local Perth and Kinross residents annually. Providing direct service delivery via Carers, Minority Communities, and Mental Health and Wellbeing Hubs, alongside the Third Sector Interface, PKAVS engages with and supports a broad spectrum of individuals, community groups and organisations, some with complex support needs.
1. How effective has the four-nations approach been in tackling the coronavirus pandemic? What improvements could be made to formal intergovernmental structures such as the Joint-Ministerial Committee in light of the pandemic?
The four-nations’ approach to tackling the coronavirus pandemic has unquestionably resulted in mixed messaging. As a Perth and Kinross based organisation working with a large cross section of our local communities, it is clear from our beneficiaries that they are unsure which messaging is to be adhered to; whether they should be abiding by the policies and strategies outlined by Prime Minister Boris Johnson or by the transition plan from the Scottish Government and Nicola Sturgeon. Having one agreed coherent approach across the four nations would have made navigating this unprecedented set of circumstances more straightforward. If everyone is guided by the science, as we so often hear, then it should not result in such differentials. All politics, whether nationalist or unionist, should have been put to the side in order to focus on the best possible outcomes for communities and citizens.
One clear example of where a more joined up approach would have been beneficial is that of volunteering. The initial message delivered by Secretary of State for Health and Social Care Matt Hancock was very clear. People across Scotland took this on board and wanted to offer their support, only to find that the NHS volunteering only referred to NHS Trusts in England. Scotland’s own Scotland Cares campaign, launched a few weeks later, without any prior conversations to Volunteer Centres and Third Sector Interfaces left many unclear on what route they could take to get involved.
2. To what extent has the Four-Nations’ Action Plan (published 3rd March) been fit for purpose? How was it designed, and did it reflect the right balance of expert advice?
I am unaware of the Four-Nations’ Action Plan. This has never been referred to in any of the national conversations or meetings that I have attended regarding the pandemic. I therefore cannot comment on whether or not it is fit for purpose. However, by the very nature that I as an avid consumer of information (both personally and professionally), am not aware of the plan, I believe, speaks volumes to the value attributed to it. The very nature of many of these strategies and documents are exclusionary by the language and terminology that is used. If they are not digestible by the communities and citizens they are supposed to protect and support then they will forever remain an underutilised document on a shelf.
3. How will the UK Government’s ‘stay alert’ message, announced on the 10th of May, impact Scotland? How effective was the coordination between the UK and Scottish Governments, and their respective advisory groups, in relation to the ‘stay alert’ message?
The UK Government’s ‘stay alert’ message, is by its very nature ambiguous - alert from what? How? Scotland’s ‘stay at home’ message is clearer. Again, not having one agreed position has resulted in people being uncertain as to which leader people should follow. As soon as people have uncertainty, adherence to guidelines is reduced.
It is also worth noting in response to this question that even if one agreed message was projected, senior level officials and identifiable staff in positions of power not abiding by these rules and expectations deems the messaging largely null and void. If people responsible for the messaging around safety, health and wellbeing are undermining leaders in their commitment to keeping people safe, then why should every day citizens also choose to inconvenience themselves by adhering to strategies and policies which seem restrictive?
4. What implications are there for divergence in UK and Scottish Government policy in tackling the pandemic? Should there by further divergence between nations in easing lockdown restrictions?
In our opinion, divergence between nations has diluted the messaging for communities and citizens, leading to confusion, uncertainty and the taking of more risks. This is not something we should be aspiring for. We should all be committed to protecting people and keeping communities as safe as possible. Again it seems that health and wellbeing outcomes have been cast aside in favour of political point scoring.
One other point to note is that many of the Eastern European migrant communities that our PKAVS Minority Communities Hub work with actually do not receive their information from mainstream media outlets. Many people continue to receive their coronavirus information from their native countries, which in many cases have even greater divergence from UK and Scottish Government policy. We are concerned that this has not been factored into consideration. More could have been done to pro-actively engage and tailor support to these communities.
5. Have the UK’s funding package and support schemes been sufficient in supporting Scottish businesses, employees and self-employed people in Scotland? Have they been able to reach all sectors in Scotland?
As the Third Sector Interface for Perth and Kinross, I do not believe PKAVS is in a position to comment on support for local business, employees and self-employed people. Other organisations and individuals will be better placed to comment on those matters. We can share our experience and insight of how this has been experienced in the third sector, however, we note that opinions expressed will not be shared by all.
Many local third sector organisations have taken advantage of the furlough scheme for staff involved in areas such as fundraising and income generation, activity delivery and project development. Having this avenue when delivery of their job role would be a larger financial outlay for the organisation than the worth of the value it added, has been appreciated. Many of these roles come from core organisational costs as opposed to grant funding and therefore would have further restricted or limited the organisation they are here to support, as opposed to bring benefit to local communities, groups and individuals.
Furlough aside, the covid19 support package combining the Third Sector Resilience Fund, Community Wellbeing Fund and Supporting Communities Fund has been warmly received by the Third Sector. Many groups, organisations and social enterprises adapted their delivery plans in order to continue meeting the support needs of their beneficiaries during the pandemic. This was not cost neutral. The funding packages in place have enabled service users/members to maintain relationships with the organisations and groups offering the support, for many this has been a lifeline in terms of physical, mental and emotional wellbeing. Reflecting on our own experience at PKAVS, many of those we engage with are marginalised and ‘hard to reach’, not ready consumers of public services. Without third sector services, the impact of the pandemic on these individuals would have intensified.
The funding package in Scotland has been well promoted and accessed by many. One concern we do have, and have flagged to the Scottish Government, is the oversight and scrutiny function. The Scottish Government have their support available, many local authorities have then opened up their own funding streams in addition to those offered by traditional grant funders for example Comic Relief. Some third sector organisations made view this as an opportunity to apply for funding from a range of sources to cover the same activities. With little oversight in place, this may have been unjustly monopolised.
6. Has UK and Scottish Government policy around key workers been effective? What further policy changes are required to support; a) seasonal workers b) social care workers and c) other key workers?
Communication around key workers has centred heavily around those working for the NHS. NHS colleagues have been at the coal face of the Covid response, and their plaudits are very much warranted, however, we seem to have placed far greater value on the NHS than we have in comparison to low paid workers in care-homes who have largely been exposed to very similar circumstances. We believe the UK and Scottish Government should have placed more emphasis on the broader range of key workers including those outwith that traditional NHS hospital setting.
a) Seasonal workers – PKAVS Minority Communities Hub engages with a large migrant population across Perth and Kinross, the majority of which are involved with seasonal agricultural and hospitality related work. These groups (largely Polish, Romanian and Bulgarian workers) have been disproportionately impacted by covid-related redundancies. In many instances, this has also impacted not only their income, but their housing too as it has often been a condition of employment.
We have seen very little evidence of the UK and Scottish Government making an effort to engage with seasonal workers via channels or vehicles which are accessed by the group concerned. Mainstream media is not enough, it has to be tailored, multi-lingual and in line with social and cultural norms. The PKAVS Minority Communities Hub has attempted to bridge this gap, providing support and translating government messaging into community languages, however, much could have been done in terms of community cohesion and integration had these steps been considered by the Scottish and UK Government with the resource at their disposable.
b) Social care workers – similar to the scenario above. Many of our local health and social care workers are not indigenous Scots. Those working in this field have been disproportionately exposed to risks of the coronavirus pandemic. In terms of equal access to information in order to protect themselves and others, PPE guidelines in a range of languages would be helpful.
c) Others – We believe there to have been a lack of clarity from both UK and the Scottish Government in terms of whether or not third sector staff providing service delivery fall into key worker status or not. Speaking on behalf of our own staff team, had this been made clearer at the onset, more staff may have made greater use of the Education Hubs for their children rather than trying to coordinate an exponential increase in volunteering and service delivery efforts with young children at their feet. I think this will only further strengthen the belief that the third sector is not valued as highly as its public and private counterparts.
7. What more could the UK and Scottish Government do to ensure that Scottish key workers have been able to gain access to personal protective equipment (PPE)?
PPE has been a point of contention in Perth and Kinross. As one of the largest charities in the area we not been approached at any time during the past 12 weeks with information on how to source or access PPE for our own service delivery, or for the wider third sector which we serve as the Third Sector Interface. We would have anticipated, in terms of best value and coordination, that having a centralised point of access for PPE which places like ourselves could utilise for our constituents would have been a sensible approach. Instead everyone has had to source their own, with varying success and at widely diverging prices.
Our PKAVS Carers Centre has also had some difficulties in sourcing PPE for unpaid Carers. The Local Authority has a supply to meet this need, but it has been a challenge for local carers to access. The Carers Centre has played a key role in bridging that gap between need and supplies however it has not been without challenge getting to this point.
8. Have there been particular issues relating to Coronavirus that have not been addressed by a Government response?
The UK and Scottish Governments have faced unprecedented challenges with the onset of Coronavirus. Never before have we experienced anything like this, therefore much of the response was always going to be trial and error. The next phase, as we head to recovery necessitates just as coordinated an approach. As it currently stands, we feel the ‘recovery phase’ has not received as much focus or attention, leaving many questions unanswered. With demands on services predicted to increase, it would be helpful for third sector organisations, charities and social enterprises to have information about what type of support may be available as they look to recover and once again adapt and evolve.
One issue that does need to be addressed, not only in Scotland but four-nation wide is digital exclusion. The Connecting Scotland scheme is still in the embryonic stage and has come too far into the pandemic and lockdown for it to have any meaningful impact for the individuals and families concerned. We are aware of several occasions during lockdown where parents have been consulted on plans for children returning to school using social media platforms, with little to no thought or regard for those who are digitally excluded or digitally illiterate. In affluent areas in particular, where there may be pockets of intense deprivation masked by the overall financial picture, there has not been sufficient consideration of how approaches such as this reinforce inequality of access.
Food insecurity is another area of concern, not just locally but nationally. In Perth and Kinross this has been handled by the Local Authority with no involvement from the third sector interface despite attempts at dialogue and information sharing. Again, in terms of outcomes for local individuals, families and communities, we believe a more coordinated and multi-agency approach would have been beneficial.