Chamber and committees

I am pleased to contribute to Paul O’Kane’s members’ business debate to highlight the importance of challenge poverty week 2024. I will use my time to raise an important issue that I have been looking into for quite some time. It relates to Paul O’Kane’s opening speech, in which he mentioned the importance of food provision.

When I was the Conservative spokesperson for children and young people, I visited a Stirling food bank after I was contacted by an individual who wanted to help families with babies but had come across a huge barrier to supplying baby milk to families in need. Milk is, of course, essential for the first stages of an infant’s life and, if the mother is unable to breastfeed, they rely solely on baby milk formula. The nutrients that are contained in the milk are vital for a baby’s healthy growth and development. However, keeping up with the cost of bottles and tins can leave many mothers who are struggling financially in a worrying situation. To put that into context, it can cost up to £18 per 800g for baby formula powder. I know from when my baby, Charlotte, was growing up that that can involve a lot of tins over a very short period of time.

At present, food banks are not permitted to accept or distribute infant formula donations. Although I fully accept that that guidance comes from UNICEF rather than the Scottish Government or the UK Government, it makes no sense to me whatsoever to deny a family that vital product, which they might need to help to provide for their child.

Local authorities, health boards and public health teams play an important role in identifying families and meeting their needs with regard to infant formula through wraparound care. However, for quite some time, I have been concerned about families falling through gaps in the system. Some families will go to a food bank when they hit crisis point, instead of following the direct services route that I mentioned.

UNICEF suggests that food banks should contact health visiting services, public health teams, local authorities or health boards to agree on a referral strategy for families who are in crisis and need support. However, that can be a very long process involving layers of bureaucracy. Families who need to feed their babies need that help directly. They simply cannot wait to go through the various layers of the system.

The healthy start scheme is another route, but it is not immediate, and not all families are eligible to use it.

I understand the risks of food banks handing out baby milk, but I also understand the risks of buying baby milk from a supermarket. In my view, those risks are exactly the same. There must be a way round the issue. A supermarket in Buxton was able to support a local paper’s campaign to support the High Peak Baby Bank, which led to people being able to donate items from supermarkets, including formula, wipes and food.

However, the guidance must be clearer. In my view, it is simply common sense to ensure that families are able to access baby milk formula if they need to. I would welcome the opportunity to speak to the minister at a future point to talk about how we can engage with UNICEF directly to see whether there is any way of overcoming such barriers for charities and organisations that do a wonderful job to help families in need.

This is challenge poverty week. I hope that there will come a day when families do not need to rely on food banks, but until we tackle the root causes of poverty, we must ensure that such vital items are available to support families with babies. I fully believe that every child deserves the best possible start in life. One way in which we can improve the health and wellbeing of babies in Scotland is by looking at whether baby milk can be supplied through food banks. I urge the Scottish Government to do that. I am more than happy to work with the Government on the matter so that a commonsense approach can be adopted to tackling poverty in Scotland.

I associate myself with Paul O’Kane’s comments about the fact that access to legal services is vitally important to everyone. We have been speaking about human rights this morning. We need to ensure that people can access legal services when they need to. I share the concerns about the annulment as it is presented in the motion. That is not because I do not believe that the matter should be looked into. It absolutely should be looked into.

I seek reassurance from the minister with regard to the review of legal fees, which she touched on briefly in her opening statement. The committee could explore that or the Scottish Government could pursue it directly on the back of what we have discussed today. It would be helpful if the minister could address that when she sums up. I sympathise with the points that have been raised about ensuring that people can get access to justice support when they need it.

We can take that point, and we can look to work together on these important issues, but the human rights bill is not coming into place so that we can scrutinise, debate and inform it. The right to food and the right to housing have been mentioned by other colleagues. Are you disappointed that we cannot have discussions about the right to housing and the right to food, which could have been incorporated in the bill?

It is about looking at what the Scottish Government can do in relation to issues here in Scotland that are within its devolved remit. That is where I think the cabinet secretary should focus her interest regarding housing or the right to food. However, we do not have a bill where we can stack that up.

I thank the cabinet secretary for her time this morning.

Good morning, cabinet secretary and officials. The Scottish Parliament is one of the most powerful devolved Governments in the world, but there have been issues in relation to the Scottish Government acting outwith devolved competence when it comes to particular legislation that has gone through the Parliament. On the stakeholder engagement that has happened on the human rights bill over the past 10 years, has the Scottish Government overpromised and underdelivered when it comes to the bill’s timeframe and what the Government can do within its competence?

I disagree with that completely when it comes to what this Parliament can do within its devolved scope. We talk about issues such as the housing crisis and the right to food, with reference to the human rights bill. Those areas come under devolved competence and are therefore the responsibility of the Scottish Government.

Looking ahead, does the Scottish Government intend to bring the bill back before the next election in 2026, or will it hang on until after that election?

I understand where the cabinet secretary is coming from with respect to multiyear funding. Of course, it is not just Creative Scotland that is looking for a new way for the Scottish Government to allocate funding to those organisations. Historic Environment Scotland is another one that would like to see a progression to multiyear funding. What conversations has the Scottish Government had with Historic Environment Scotland? I am very concerned about where its budgetary situation is in terms of the prioritisation of historic sites and whether there will be a significant reduction in the important work that it can carry out.

Good morning, cabinet secretary. We have spoken a lot about Creative Scotland and the review. Given the controversies this year, the review is timely and will, I hope, lead to better working relationships between the publicly funded body and the Scottish Government. However, it is right to say that the decisions that Creative Scotland can take depend on the budget that the Scottish Government provides.

Creative Scotland’s chief executive, Iain Munro, has stated that lack of clarity about the budget was part of the reason why it decided to close its open fund. Cabinet secretary, I have in front of me a freedom of information document, dated 27 August, that requested any correspondence between you and Creative Scotland regarding the announcement of the closure of the open fund. The response that I received stated that there had been no discussions between you and Creative Scotland regarding that significant announcement. We are talking about £6.6 million, so surely there would have been correspondence between the Scottish Government and Creative Scotland. Why did such discussions not take place? If they did, can you clarify what discussions took place?

Given the brief conversation that I had with the minister beforehand, I thought that it would be remiss of me not to come in with a brief supplementary question. A constituent contacted me regarding the eligibility criteria, as their child was not able to start obtaining the 1,140 hours after they turned three years old. That would suggest a lack of support for private providers, which Martin Whitfield raised. What conversations is the minister having with local government to ensure that children can access 1,140 hours when they turn three years old?

Thank you.