Chamber and committees

I have a question on that. My understanding is that the traditional role of the funeral director is to shoulder that burden and take it away from the family at a time when it is difficult for them to have to try and pay lots of people all over the place. How does the respectful part fit into the approach that you have outlined? I understand that it would take the pressure off the funeral director and would mean that they would not be left with that debt. Of course, if Social Security Scotland were to give the money directly to the interment authority, that would also remove that risk. However, would that change the traditional role of the funeral director, which is currently the trusted organisation in that regard?

As a former welfare benefits adviser, I will pose a question about something that I would probably not have wanted any of my clients to have been dealing with. Something that Gerry Boyle said made me think about this: is there not a mechanism just now whereby Social Security Scotland knows when a claimant has received a payment and has not used it for its intended purposes? Is there not such a way to look at that at the moment? In any other situation, you would know—well, I suppose that if a crisis loan were not used for its intended purpose, there would be no comeback on that either.

Is there no look back to see whether something has been used? Are any statistics collected on such incidents, or do we not really have a full understanding of how many there are? I would imagine that, if there is not such a mechanism, there is no ability to ask for the money back when there has been an overpayment by Social Security Scotland.

There are calls for a payment of around the £2,184 mark, which would cover the lower-end costs of a simple attended funeral. However, when we are looking at a situation in which a lair and interment fees, if there is not already a lair there, would be more than £2,000, as it is in the local authority area where I stay, I am trying to figure out how the costs to the funeral directors and the person can be managed within the envelope of a funeral support payment and whether there is any movement in the system that means that it is not entirely on the funeral directors to reduce those costs.

10:00

In the same way as when housing payments are paid directly to a claimant and they are not used to pay the rent, the system cannot claw back the payment in retrospect. However, in the case of housing payments, there is a consequence, in that eviction proceedings could be started. I am trying to figure out a potential way to minimise that situation happening, because we do not want that to happen.

Thanks.

I was the political lead who helped to set up East Ayrshire’s respectful funeral service, but, since then, we have had the Burial and Cremation (Scotland) Act 2016, which enabled local authorities to set their fees at what they see as a reasonable level.

Jim Brodie has brought that point into the conversation and I want to unpick it a bit and understand what driver of poverty that creates when it comes to funeral costs, especially as those payments will definitely be covered under the funeral support payment. Does work need to be done to understand what that looks like across the country, how quickly those fees are increasing and whether it is reasonable that they are increasing in the way that they are?

I will restrict my comments to my amendment 21. I also declare an interest as a member of the Humanist Society Scotland.

Amendment 21 would place a duty on Scottish ministers to issue statutory guidance that sets out the “meaning of religious observance” for the purposes of the bill. It would also require the statutory guidance to be published within 12 months of the commencement of the new guidance provision. The amendment reflects calls for clarity on the meaning of religious observance after stage 2, when religious observance and religious and moral education were separated in the bill and the parental right to withdraw was limited to apply only to religious observance.

Amendment 21 also responds to the concerns that were raised about instances of non-inclusive religious observance in non-denominational settings, most notably by Humanist Society Scotland in its “Preaching is not Teaching” report. Ministers preparing the guidance would therefore be required to consider the

“importance of inclusiveness in the content and delivery of religious observance”.

That would support schools in ensuring that all pupils can participate in a way that respects their personal beliefs, while promoting a time-for-reflection approach.

Recognising the distinct context of religious observance in denominational schools, the amendment specifically includes representatives of denominational schools, alongside “operators of schools” and those who represent the interests of parents, pupils and teachers, as mandatory consultees. That would help to ensure that the guidance is workable and appropriate across all school types.

The requirement for ministers to publish the guidance within 12 months of the section’s commencement reflects the importance of the guidance in providing clarity for schools, pupils and parents on how the changes in the bill should be implemented. I encourage members to support amendment 21.

Amendment 23 proposes the introduction of a statutory review of the implementation of the changes to the withdrawal process, which would be published three years after the provisions come into force. That represents a proportionate and workable approach. By allowing a reasonable period of time to pass before the review is undertaken, the amendment would ensure that sufficient evidence and practical experience were available to assess whether the legislation was operating as intended.

Under amendment 23, the review would also consider how religious observance had been delivered during the period in question and assess how inclusive that provision had been. That provision aims to respond to the concerns that were raised during the parliamentary process regarding the dearth of evidence about the current form and delivery of religious observance by growing the existing evidence base. That is especially important given the freedom of information responses that were published last week by the Humanist Society Scotland.

Importantly, amendment 23 would require the Scottish ministers to set out what actions they intended to take in response to the review’s findings, or to explain clearly if no further action was proposed. That would extend in particular to any actions taken to enable children to independently withdraw from religious observance.

Finally, ministers would have to lay a copy of the report before the Scottish Parliament.

I encourage members to support amendment 23.

I am pleased to bring to the chamber this debate recognising eating disorders awareness week 2026, which runs from 23 February to 1 March. I thank members from across the chamber for adding their voices to mine on the issue, and I thank the eating disorders charity Beat for providing briefings. I welcome to the public gallery representatives from Beat and SupportED, as well as David, a father who lost his beloved daughter just last year. I pay tribute to them for bearing with us as our decision time this evening crept ever later.

This year’s theme is community, and it could not be more important. Eating disorders are profoundly isolating illnesses. They isolate the person who is struggling; the parents and carers, who are frightened and unsure where to turn; and the families, who often feel that they are navigating a complex and fragmented system alone. However, community, connection, shared understanding and peer support can be an absolute lifeline.

We know that eating disorders affect at least 1.25 million people across the United Kingdom, including around 100,000 people in Scotland. We also know that the prevalence and complexity of such disorders appear to have increased since the Covid-19 pandemic. Behind those numbers are real lives: people who are living with anorexia, bulimia, binge-eating disorder or avoidant restrictive food intake disorder—ARFID.

It is ARFID that I want to speak about personally today. In my own family, we have experienced the reality of ARFID, and I want to be honest about what that has meant. I have spoken about it before, but it bears repeating. It did not look like what many people imagine an eating disorder to be. There was no discussion about body image and no desire to lose weight. Instead, there was overwhelming anxiety around food: the texture, the smell and the appearance—fears that others might dismiss as fussiness. Meals became battlegrounds and social occasions became stressful or non-existent because they were just too traumatic. Nutrition became an urgent daily concern for us all.

When we sought help, we encountered what so many families tell us they experience: uncertainty. There was uncertainty about who was responsible for treatment; uncertainty about whether the case was “serious enough”; and uncertainty about what pathways even existed. We met dedicated professionals who wanted to help—I acknowledge that—but we also encountered gaps, a lack of consistent understanding, long waits and no clear, agreed pathway. That experience is not unique.

We continue to hear, through helplines and community organisations, that services can be hard to access and late to intervene, and that they are too often driven by crisis management rather than early support. Some people receive excellent care from general practitioners and primary care teams, but there remains significant geographical variation, with support sometimes being dependent on where people live.

Families describe struggling to get recognition for binge-eating disorder, young people with ARFID being told that they do not fit traditional criteria, and people waiting months and sometimes years for specialist input. Meanwhile, presentations are becoming ever more complex. People are navigating eating disorders alongside neurodivergence, trauma, substance use, depression and anxiety. Social media shapes how young people are thinking about food and body image. The increasing availability of glucagon-like peptide-1—GLP-1—weight-loss injections adds another layer to a fast-changing landscape. This is not a static challenge—it is ever evolving.

It is important to recognise however, that Scotland has much to be proud of in terms of its policy direction. The 2021 national review of eating disorder services set out comprehensive, thoughtful recommendations in its “Scottish Eating Disorder Services Review—Full Report”.

The 2024 “National Specification for the Care and Treatment of Eating Disorders in Scotland” provides a clear framework for improvement. Through the national eating disorders network, work is being done to improve training via the Turas online learning platform, NHS Inform and NHS 24. Health boards have been asked to audit themselves and plan implementation. That is all good work and it deserves recognition.

However, the reality that we continue to hear about from people with lived experience is that the ambition has not yet translated into consistent change on the ground everywhere. A strategy is only as strong as its delivery, and we must, collectively, strive harder, as I know we all want to do. Clinical teams are being asked to implement significant transformation within existing structures and ever-tightening budgets. Waiting time targets and expectations around self-referral require capacity, and the national network itself operates with very limited staffing. We cannot assume that publishing a review means that the problem is solved or that, because structures exist, the experience of families has improved everywhere.

That brings me back to the theme of community. Community means peer support, which amazing organisations such as Beat are expanding across the country. It means training teachers so that schools can identify concerns early; equipping GPs with the confidence to recognise ARFID and binge-eating disorder; and supporting carers, who often shoulder enormous emotional and practical burdens. I cannot put a number on the amount of time that I have spent in tears over the years.

However, community also means political will. The national specification was designed as a 10-year transformation, yet current structures are secured only until the end of the current session of Parliament. Eating disorders transcend political timeframes—they are serious mental illnesses, with among the highest mortality rates of any psychiatric condition. Sustained change requires sustained commitment beyond electoral cycles.

If we are serious about early intervention, we must invest in it. If we are serious about parity between mental and physical health, we must demonstrate it. If we are serious about reducing geographical inequality, we must measure and address it. If we are serious about community, we must listen to lived experience.

When families say that they feel dismissed, we must respond. When young people say that they are waiting too long, we need to act. When clinicians say that they need clearer pathways, we must provide them. No parent should sit at a kitchen table in tears wondering how to get help for their child; no young person should feel their illness is not the right kind to qualify for support; and no family should feel alone, as we did. Certainly no family should lose their child, as David, who is sitting in the public gallery this evening, did.

Eating disorders awareness week gives us an opportunity to talk openly, reduce stigma, share stories and build connection, but awareness must be matched by action. This week, we should not only recognise the scale of the challenge but renew our commitment to addressing it fully, consistently and compassionately. I know that the Minister for Social Care and Mental Wellbeing will set that out, because I recognise the work that the Government is doing in this space. For the 100,000 people in Scotland who are living with an eating disorder, for their families and for the communities that surround them, we need to come together on this issue.

20:18

Amendment 19 addresses calls from several stakeholders for clear guidance on the implementation of the changes that are proposed in part 1 of the bill.

The amendment would change the existing ministerial power to issue statutory guidance to a duty to do so. It would also introduce further requirements relating to the content of the guidance, the consultation process that must underpin its development and the arrangements for its publication.

Amendment 19 sets out the core areas that the statutory guidance would have to cover. Those areas reflect many of the issues that were raised during stage 2, including:

“(a) the process for considering a request for withdrawal from religious observance,

(b) support available to pupils and parents about the process,

(c) assessing whether a pupil is capable of forming a view about a request,

(d) handling of discussion between pupils and parents about a request.”

The amendment would also establish a list of mandatory consultees with whom ministers must engage when preparing the guidance.

Amendment 19 sets out a clear timescale within which the Scottish ministers would have to issue the guidance, stipulating that it must be published within a year of the commencement of the relevant provisions. That is intended to prevent delays in providing much-needed clarity for schools, pupils and parents.