Chamber and committees

I, too, thank Foysol Choudhury for bringing this important debate to the chamber.

The global food system is not only a victim of climate change; it is one of the world’s main polluters. WWF has said that

“Food production is one of the biggest threats to our planet”.

It has a point—food systems are responsible for 60 per cent of global nature loss and more than one third of total greenhouse gas emissions.

COP26 rightly focused on important topics such as deforestation and emissions, but I was disappointed that the impact of food systems on climate change was less prominent. Fortunately, food was on the menu during many of the round-table discussions, and although food presents a threat with regard to climate change, it presents global opportunities, too. As Susan Aitken, leader of Glasgow City Council noted recently,

“Food is the point where climate change and health come together.”

That connection between food systems, climate change and inequality is why I will always champion Scotland becoming a good food nation.

I ask the other witnesses to say whether they support advocacy, and I ask Ramon whether there is evidence of it happening on the ground, either locally or more widely, including internationally.

Convener, do you want me to mention the Morgan report while we are discussing this topic, or do you want to pick that up later on?

That is fine. Important points have been made about poverty and its impacts.

Thank you all for coming along today. I want to ask you about advocacy services, which Ramon Hutchingson brought up. Fergus Ewing talked about the struggles that parents can have, and, as a parent myself, I have seen the parent-carer stuff coming through. The Morgan report backs that up as well, identifying that everything can be an on-going battle. Sometimes, parents can be seen as aggressive or demanding when they are actually at the end of their tether and are just trying to get something to happen for their child. Also, some parents suffer some of the anxiety and communication issues that their children have, but they are undiagnosed.

The Morgan report said that, quite often, the children with the most disruptive behaviours get the attention at school and the other children get ignored. There is often a situation in which the strengths of children with complex needs are not recognised but there are difficulties with the struggles and challenges of children who are very high functioning being recognised as well. They are quite often minimised.

For those reasons, advocacy seems to be an important factor. Ramon, do you have any evidence of that happening locally? I also wonder whether the other panel members support advocacy and agree that it should play a big part.

Do the other panel members agree that advocacy should play a big part in that regard?

Thank you. That was really helpful.

I am also interested in the balance of risks, because crisis is often very much a part of life for the children we are talking about. Existing distressed behaviours and anxieties have been exacerbated by the situation. We have had to balance risks to children’s mental health and wellbeing against the threat to life and to their physical health from spreading infection. Did we strike the balance somewhere in the middle or was it way off?

I am thinking about the positive things that were mentioned—some young people being able to engage better, red tape being cut for those who perhaps struggle with mainstream school, digital access being provided for non-attenders, and the opening of doors to creativity. Linda O’Neill talked about the doorstep arts sessions. Balanced against that is the idea that it was a bit of a lottery, depending on where people live, but cutting red tape opened the door to opportunities. I am interested to hear about any other positive things.

What do you see as being the priorities going forward, with regard to learning from experience and incorporating that in policy? That is quite a big question that goes first to Linda O’Neill.

I am just writing down little important points that Linda O’Neill made, or they will go out of my head—including targeted support for children in the area that she mentioned. I declare that I am a councillor on South Lanarkshire Council. I am also a parent to autistics.

This might be in the committee papers, so I apologise if I have missed it. What proportion of the children who went to hubs were vulnerable? The hubs also provided childcare for the children of emergency workers and key workers, such as our national health service workers, because they and their partners were not at home to look after their children. What are the statistics on that? I am not sure which witness might know the answer to that.

Although two doses of the Covid-19 vaccine will not fully prevent transmission of the virus, I have viewed a range of evidence that full vaccination lowers the risk of passing on the virus and of developing serious complications and/or requiring hospitalisation. Does the cabinet secretary agree that the vaccination certification scheme provides greater reassurance to many members of the public who are considering attending venues or large-scale events that are covered by the scheme?

The actions that are set out in today’s statement will help us to reach our world-leading targets for zero emissions by 2045. Dr Church’s review of the role of incineration in the waste hierarchy in Scotland is particularly welcome. What impact will that have on planning applications for new incinerators, such as the Overwood farm proposal in South Lanarkshire?