Chamber and committees

I thank the colleagues from across the chamber who signed my motion, securing today’s important debate. Every person in this room will have experienced loss, and how we react to that loss varies from person to person. We are all individuals, and all responses are valid and should be respected accordingly. Today’s debate is about emphasising the importance of strong, compassionate bereavement support at every level of society—support that guides people through one of the most difficult experiences that any of us will face.

This week marks national grief awareness week, which is organised by the wonderfully supportive Good Grief Trust. This year’s theme is “Growing with Grief”, which highlights that, even though the loss of someone marks an end, it can also become the ground from which something new begins. A bereavement changes us as an individual but, with an ear to listen to us and a shoulder to lean on, we have the opportunity to grow into someone new who is shaped by love, memories and resilience. The pain might always remain, but hope eventually returns.

On 11 August 2021, I had just arrived at my mother-in-law’s house in Carlisle, after a weekend out in the camper van with my husband, when my phone rang. I saw that it was my grandpa’s house phone and, when I answered it, I heard the grief in my aunt’s voice as she started to speak. I do not remember this, but apparently I shouted, “No, don’t say it,” as I knew that she was going to tell me that he had died. Even though he was in his 95th year, given how hale and hearty he was, it somehow felt like he would be with us forever. I was wholly unprepared for the visceral grief that overtook me in a whole-body reaction at the loss of that giant among men. He was a teller of tales, the bestower of a solid moral compass and a deep believer in social justice. He helped to make me who I am today. I felt as if my arm was cut off—and maybe a leg, too.

We immediately left for home, and in a very surreal twist, we were caught up in a major accident on the motorway that saw us serving hot drinks from our camper van and letting folk use the loo as kids played kick-about on the deserted tarmac for hours. At the time, being prevented from getting home was indescribable. However, in retrospect, I now see the value and the serendipity of our camper being right where it needed to be in that moment. I know that my grandpa would have wanted me to be a helper in such a crisis. Although I alternated between sobbing—and I mean viscerally sobbing—and helping, I felt him close by.

I therefore want to focus today’s debate on what those in power can do to create a whole-systems approach that fosters a national understanding of grief, supports people through all its stages and enables hope to re-emerge. Earlier this year, I was contacted by L&M Therapeutic Services, whose expert team offers counselling support to my constituents. I am pleased that its representatives were able to make it to the Parliament today to listen to our discussion. They raised with me the lack of easily accessible bereavement support at national and local levels and highlighted the stigma that exists for those who experience grief.

In 2011, following the publication of the “Shaping bereavement care” report, the Scottish Government issued a framework for action for national health service boards to improve their bereavement care. Fourteen years down the line, each health board should now have a well-developed plan and implementation should be well under way.

In 2021, the UK Commission on Bereavement was established to investigate the key issues related to bereavement and to make recommendations on improving support for bereaved people across the UK. Its report suggested that the Scottish Government should adopt a

“cross-departmental bereavement strategy that recognises support following bereavement as a human right”,

paying particular attention to those with protected characteristics and those facing disadvantage. I would welcome the minister’s confirmation that those policies are now in place and an explanation of what further improvements are in train.

Grief can have a devastating impact on our ability to work and to work well. Although I acknowledge that, for some, work can be a welcome distraction, for many of us it feels as though the rest of the world is continuing to turn as our lives are forever changed. In the UK, there is no general statutory right to bereavement leave for employees, except for parents who lose a child aged under 18 or who have had a stillbirth after 24 weeks of pregnancy. For all other situations, employees must rely on their employers’ discretionary compassionate leave policy, take sick leave or use holiday time. That leaves large groups of people with no legal right to paid time off. In turn, it forces people back into the workplace when they simply are not ready.

Bereavement support charity Sue Ryder estimates that bereavement

“costs the UK economy an estimated £23bn a year in lost Gross Value Added (GVA) and costs the UK Treasury an estimated £8bn in reduced tax revenues, increased healthcare costs and income support payments.”

We can translate that to the impact on our devolved income generation and social security payments. Clearly, if we support people through their grief, we can support them back into work and support our economy at the same time. However, care and support alone are not enough. If we want meaningful improvement, we must also confront the stigma that still surrounds grief.

It can be easier to understand someone’s grief when they lose a person who is very close to them, but grief is much more complex than that. People can grieve for many different kinds of relationships, even for those that were complicated, distant or unresolved. Grief does not follow a timetable. In the immediate aftermath of a death, people are consumed with paperwork, funeral arrangements and visitors. Those distractions can delay the emotional impact, causing grief to surface months later and leaving the grieving person adrift without understanding or support from others. That stigma can make them feel that their emotions are somehow less valid, less legitimate or even a nuisance when everybody else has moved on.

We must improve education around death and encourage open, honest conversations about it from a young age. In March this year, I wrote to the Minister for Social Care, Mental Wellbeing and Sport, who confirmed to me that the current curriculum framework includes learning skills and strategies to support children and young people in challenging times, particularly in relation to change and loss. That is welcome, but we need to go further. My neighbouring constituency of Ayr saw Gaby Williamson launch her let’s blether bereavement boxes, following the death of her father. Those boxes contain resources that help children with their grief, and they are available to all primary school pupils in South Ayrshire, which is part of my constituency. That is a fantastic initiative, and I would love to see it replicated everywhere.

Seven minutes is nowhere near enough time to explore a subject as complex and as personal as bereavement, but I will close with this. We need clearer messaging about what support already exists. We need a stronger understanding of where the gaps are and a plan to address them. We need to talk openly about death and dying, creating a culture in which death is not a taboo but a shared human reality. If we do that, we will build a country where everyone is supported through loss, encouraged to grow and able to find hope again.

Good afternoon. We have only a couple of minutes left, so I will quickly run through a few questions around enforcement and compliance.

Do you foresee any practical challenges that the aesthetic industry might face in meeting the bill’s requirements on inspections and compliance?

Is your concern not so much about how the inspection process for licensed premises might take place as about the wider issue of rogue practitioners who might not get caught under the bill? They will be covered by the bill in terms of the offences that they would be undertaking, but is your concern about what the mechanism is for finding them out?

I can see that Louise Caithness is also nodding. Would you like to come in, Louise?

Is there also concern about some form of safety paradox arising? In other words, in seeking to increase safety and raise standards, we might see that part of the system grow a little, but some people might be priced out of the market as a result and turn to other areas that are not regulated as effectively.

In that case, how can we ensure that that part of the market—the off market, the black market or whatever you want to call it—is effectively regulated under the bill?

No. I know that we are out of time.

Good morning. I want to spend some of the time that we have left speaking about enforcement and compliance, which have been touched on a lot this morning.

I had wanted to start with Tina McCaffery—Tina, I do not know whether your audio is sorted. Do you support the offences and penalties that are proposed in the bill and, if not, what changes you would suggest? Your submission to our call for views stated:

“Improvement notices and education should come before criminal sanctions, reserving offences for deliberate or reckless malpractice.”

Tina, is your sound back?

As Tina’s sound is, unfortunately, not back yet, I will put that question to all the witnesses. How do you feel about the offences and penalties that are proposed in the bill? What changes would you suggest to them, if any?

Finally, should we, as some believe, have a system in which improvement notices are issued first, with a path to compliance thereafter, instead of moving directly to sanctions and criminal charges? Should a legal route for appeal be set out in statute, too?

Do you feel that, when we see breaches under the legislation, there need to be improvement notices, education and work towards compliance? Obviously, if breaches are so serious that they need to be dealt with immediately—