Chamber and committees

I welcome the opportunity to speak in today’s committee debate. I grew up at the same time as the rise of the social media giants. Bebo, MySpace, Twitter and Facebook were the main social media forums then, although there are many more platforms today. I must admit that they could only be described as the wild west.

Random chat rooms and websites were also doing the rounds; however, young people had begun to move to MSN, and although that was not completely safe, you at least had to know a person’s email address to talk to them. However, just because you knew the email address and the person you were speaking to, that did not stop the bullying. Many children and young people at that time were subjected to all sorts of online abuse. After all, it is easier to be a bully hiding behind a screen than to be one in person.

Looking back, I am glad that my mum and dad supervised the time that I spent online when I was a child. Back then, there was no real protection in place for young people, and not knowing the dangers, young people were exposed to all sorts. However, that is nothing compared with what children and young people are faced with now. AI is an example of those new dangers. During the debate, I was sent an article about a recent incident in a Spanish town, where police are currently investigating naked images of dozens of young girls, which have been shared around schools. The youngest victim is 11 years old.

However, it is social media content and its dangers that I want to focus on today. A global report in August 2022 found that the number of incidents of children aged between seven and 10 being manipulated into recording abuse of themselves has surged by two thirds over a six-month period. Through grooming, deception and extortion, self-generated abuse is typically created using webcams or smartphones, and then it is shared online. Almost 20,000 reports of self-generated child sexual abuse content were seen by the Internet Watch Foundation in the first six months of 2022, which was up from just under 12,000 the previous year.

That is a trend that should worry us all, and it is incumbent on us all to try to address the problem across the UK. The IWF’s chief executive, Susie Hargreaves, has said that self-generated abuse is “entirely preventable” due to where the abuse takes place. It takes place in the home, and homes are meant to be a safe place for children. Therefore, I have a great deal of sympathy for the UK Online Safety Bill, which is trying to address that worrying trend.

There is more that we can do to keep children safe online. Before allowing children to access the internet, parents should be aware of the privacy settings and age limits for certain websites, which have been discussed in previous contributions. When on social media, they should make sure that children are not befriending or interacting with people whom they do not know. However, I wish that it was only education that we needed to worry about when it comes to online child abuse, grooming and exploitation—we also need to be concerned about the approach that social media platforms are taking.

We have yet to find the right balance between young people accessing social media and protecting them. Social media can be used as an access tool for false information—I have raised the issue of misinformation about contraception on social media and how that might be contributing to Scotland’s record-high abortion figures. Videos on TikTok have included false claims about hormonal contraception, such as the pill, the implant, the jabs and some types of coils. The misinformation online often focuses on the side effects, with one video posted by a so-called influencer claiming that birth control is this generation’s cigarettes and that it ruins our bodies.

Hashtags including #naturalbirthcontrol and #quittingbirthcontrol have also been viewed hundreds of millions of times on the app. I would argue that that is a form of online abuse, because it is telling young women that they do not need to protect themselves during sex. I believe that influencers have a duty of care to their audience, and that one should be ashamed of themselves for spreading false information and putting young women’s health at risk. If the Scottish Government can do anything to help protect young women online when it comes to sexual health, it will have my full support.

In short, I do not think that we have found the right balance between access for children and young people to social media and protecting them from online abuse. However, social media can be a force for good. After all, 800 predators a month are arrested by UK law enforcement agencies, and up to 1,200 children are safeguarded from sexual abuse because of social media handing over vital data. That is why I agree with the Home Secretary, who has urged Meta not to roll out end-to-end encryption on social media platforms without robust measures. I hope that the Scottish Government will join in those calls.

We need to have more conversations about this issue, because social media is still the wild west, it still harms young people and we must work collectively to continue to put safeguards in place to stop online child abuse, grooming and exploitation.

Will the minister take an intervention?

I welcome the opportunity to debate maternity services not once but twice today. That shows how important the issue is right across Scotland. I hope that the members who have spoken or will speak in this debate will stay for the members’ business debate after decision time so that we can continue this important conversation.

Recent developments have rightly caused outrage across Lanarkshire and the surrounding areas. Local people have set up campaign groups to object to this ill-thought-out decision. Their message is simple: they do not want the neonatal department at University hospital Wishaw to be downgraded. Why would they? It is the same department that won the United Kingdom neonatal department of the year award in 2023. It makes no sense to me that the Government has decided to reward such an outstanding department by removing the vital support that it provides to expectant mums and their newborn babies. The kick in the teeth, which members have mentioned, is that the Government’s amendment has the cheek to congratulate the department on its recent achievements. Talk about being tone deaf.

Over the past few weeks, I have been in touch with wonderful women who have shared their stories about how much they value the neonatal department at University hospital Wishaw. It is great to see some of them in the public gallery to watch this debate and the one that will follow.

I recognise and commend the efforts of Lynne McRitchie, who has been the driving force behind the campaign to stop the downgrade of the Wishaw neonatal unit. She said recently during an interview that, while the decision represents

“a real loss to parents ... ultimately it’s a real loss to babies who are born so prematurely or poorly.”

Lynne’s petition has gained a whopping 12,337 signatures. If that does not send a strong message to the Government, I do not know what will.

Among those who have contacted me are midwives, past and present, who cannot make any sense of the proposals that are outlined in the document for NHS redesign of maternity and neonatal services. They have told me that removing a vital service from the heart of the central belt of Scotland is not the answer, and they are deeply concerned about the lack of evidence to back up the loss of a vital neonatal service. Not only will Wishaw general be impacted, but Ninewells hospital in Dundee and Victoria hospital in Fife have also been selected as part of the downgrade proposals. All those hospitals are in areas with high levels of deprivation, where wrap-around care needs to be as close to communities as possible.

Let us face it: this Government does not have the best track record when it comes to maternity services. We only need to speak to mums in the Highlands to know the consequences of removing maternity services—and, by the way, maternity services at Caithness general hospital and Dr Gray’s hospital are still not fully operational. There has been no urgency from the Government to reopen them, and that has undoubtedly put expectant mums and their unborn babies at risk.

I have only four minutes for my speech, which is not a lot of time, so I am pleased that we are having two debates on the issue today. To conclude, I make a direct appeal to the minister to back the petition, listen to communities and midwives, and stop the downgrade of the Wishaw neonatal unit.

Does the member agree that the forum should have happened before the decision was taken and that the fact that that did not happen and that they have not been involved in the process whatsoever has led to many families being exceptionally concerned about what is happening?

I thank those in the public gallery along with those members who have stayed on tonight to take part in a wider discussion about maternity services in Scotland. It is greatly appreciated.

I am shocked, however, not to see Collette Stevenson in the chamber. She said in the debate on neonatal services earlier today that she wanted “more time” to debate the issue, and participating in this debate would have been the ideal opportunity for her to do so. Having not one but two debates on the same issue shows how strongly MSPs feel about maternity services being removed or scaled back.

As I mentioned earlier, the Scottish National Party does not have a good track record on maternity services. Since 2016, this Government has downgraded or closed maternity or neonatal services at Caithness general hospital in Wick; Dr Gray’s in Moray; University hospital Wishaw; Ninewells in Dundee; and Victoria hospital in Fife. Expectant mums and newborn babies up and down the country have been impacted by those decisions, and many have started campaign groups to voice their anger and frustration.

Members have heard previously in the chamber about the issues that rural mums face when travelling more than 100 miles to give birth in hospital, especially during the harsh winter months. There have been many debates on the subject, but we have yet to see maternity services fully reinstated at either Caithness or Dr Gray’s. I find it staggering that more than 90 per cent of children born in the Caithness area were delivered at Raigmore hospital in Inverness, despite there being a maternity ward in Caithness general.

The process for a mother who goes into labour in those areas is even more questionable. The general instruction is to get in the car—that is no easy task when you are having contractions—with your partner, if they happen to be with you at the time, and travel 105 miles down the one and only road to Inverness: the A9. That is the exact road that this Government has failed to dual, and it seems to think that it is safe for mums to give birth at the side of that road.

Once the expectant mother arrives at the hospital, they should admit themselves to the maternity ward at Raigmore—that is, if it is time to be admitted. As mums will understand, having contractions does not automatically mean admission to hospital, and any false alarm would result in a 210-mile round trip. Does the Government seriously think that that is a comfortable and acceptable journey for women who suspect that they are in labour to make? No expectant mum should ever have to face a journey like that, yet it still happens.

Campaign groups in the Highlands have rightly been angered by that, and it appears that they have been given no support by this Government to provide them with better maternity care. They have been forgotten about by this Government, and the SNP should feel ashamed of the journey that rural mums need to make in order to give birth in a maternity ward.

The reason that I brought this members’ business debate to the chamber is because I am a mum. When the news broke about Wishaw general hospital neonatal department being downgraded, I could not sit back and let it happen, because I gave birth to my daughter there just over a year ago. I met the wonderful midwifery team at the hospital; the care and support that they give to families and newborn babies are second to none.

I could not, and still do not, understand why Wishaw general or any of the other areas were selected for downgrading, but that is part of the problem. The plan to reduce the number of maternity services in Scotland has been shrouded in secrecy, and many questions have been left unanswered.

In the case of Wishaw neonatal department, babies who need specialised care could be transferred to Glasgow, Edinburgh or Aberdeen—the three major cities—instead of being closer to home. For the benefit of those who say that Glasgow is close by to Wishaw general, I say that the transfer could be to Aberdeen, which is roughly 150 miles away from Wishaw.

What message does it send to mums, who are already going through an exceptionally stressful time, to say that they will need to make a substantial journey in order to access specialised care, when they could receive care in the hospital that they are due to go to? The decision makes absolutely no sense—to go back to what Monica Lennon said in the earlier debate, the Government must make sense.

The Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health spoke earlier about a fund that parents can access to help with costs for travel and food, but I must say that £8.50 will not go far if they have to travel to Aberdeen.

The decision is centralisation for centralisation’s sake at the expense of vulnerable mothers and babies. Has the Government thought about how traumatising it could be for a new mum and her baby to be put in an ambulance and told that they need to go to another hospital because the one that they are currently in can no longer help them?

I get that the minister said that journeys would happen before labour started, but babies do not always work that way. As we heard in the case of Mark Griffin and his family, there are cases in which it would not be safe to move a mother or baby. I thank Mark Griffin for sharing his story, and I understand why he is not able to take part in the debate this evening.

We should not forget that we are talking about giving support to babies who need it most. Surely that should be delivered as close to home as possible.

There are also the logistics. Will the midwives be required to work across several different health boards? If a mother and baby need to be transferred, will the midwife have to accompany them? That would result in less resource in Wishaw general, which is already stretched to breaking point.

Finally, there has been a shocking lack of consultation. The announcement came out of the blue, and that is why a large group of concerned women are in the public gallery this evening: because they will not stand for it, and nor should they.

I have enough time left to thank those who have contacted a wide spread of MSPs about the issue. I especially thank Lynne, who is at the forefront of the campaign to stop the neonatal department at Wishaw general from being downgraded. Lynne has her own story about her son Innes. I have loved seeing photos of him since he appeared on a BBC documentary that highlighted the wonderful support that he received during his stay at Wishaw general while receiving specialised neonatal care.

It is because of Innes and other babies that we will fight this decision every step of the way. Moray mums fought a downgrade and Caithness mums are still fighting the downgrades. What about Lanarkshire mums? We are the feisty type, and we will fight this decision every step of the way.

To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the greater use of farm-to-fork methods to encourage domestic food production. (S6O-02492)

I agree that the issue is an important one. Given that the European Commission has softened its approach to gene-editing technology over the summer, will the cabinet secretary not recognise, as the Scottish Conservatives do, that the use of gene-editing technology would provide the best security for domestic food production in Scotland?

I welcome the opportunity to debate equality in relation to the programme for government, because yesterday’s programme was nothing short of disappointing. Humza Yousaf promised us that he would be his own man and set out his own plan, but there is not a single word in the programme that could not have come from his predecessor. It is quite telling that Nicola Sturgeon is taking part in today’s debate to defend her prodigy’s plan, because she pretty much wrote every policy in the document. That is why the programme is so disappointing. When Scotland needed a bold, new and ambitious plan to tackle the big challenges that our economy and public services face, the best that Humza Yousaf could do was copy Nicola Sturgeon’s homework and continue her Scottish National Party failures.

Before I continue to highlight the problems with the programme for government, I want to mention two areas of consensus in it, which the Scottish Conservatives have outlined in our amendment. On support for families affected by miscarriage, the First Minister will always have my support when trying to support those who have suffered a terrible loss, and I commend him for speaking so openly about his personal experience. I hope that that gives strength to those who have suffered a miscarriage and I look forward to seeing more detail on that work in the coming months.

On childcare, as a new mum, I know not only how quickly childcare costs can rise but what other financial pressures go along with raising a child. I am pleased that the Scottish Government has finally listened to the Scottish Conservatives’ calls to be bold and ambitious when it comes to the roll-out of free childcare. Empowering parents is something for which I have been calling for some time; simplifying the process for parents and giving them more choice over their child’s care is the right course of action.

That does not take away from the crisis that is currently engulfing the sector. Although I will always welcome increased pay for carers, to judge by the reaction on social media last night, the £12 an hour staff wage went down like a sinking ship. The Government still does not get it—it does not understand the needs of the third and private sectors and of voluntary organisations. Staff wages are not the problem; the problem is that, in effect, local authorities set the rates per child for both themselves and their competition. I have asked this question previously: how can a Government organisation be a competitor and a banker at the same time? I make this plea again: fix the funding formula to create equality for the private, voluntary and independent sectors. They are Scotland’s first educators and the Government must do more to support them.

I turn to the problems with the programme. It takes a lot of action to tackle violence against women and girls, which is of course welcome, but it is completely undermined by the fact that the Government is continuing to push forward with its Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill. The programme was a chance for the Government to admit that it got it wrong and to drop the bill; instead, it is charging ahead with a costly legal battle to take forward a law that the vast majority of Scots oppose. They oppose it because everyone can see its massive loopholes, which allow predatory men to take advantage of the system. The SNP Government told us that that would never happen. However, last year, mere weeks after the bill was passed, we had the case of Isla Bryson—the double rapist who was initially remanded to a women’s jail after being found guilty. If the SNP truly wants to stand up for the rights and protections of women and girls, it needs to ditch the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill. A basic public health issue that the Government could focus on is the misinformation about contraception on social media, which could be contributing to the high abortion figures.

The Government has the message of building better communities. I learned quickly during my time as a councillor that the SNP rips the heart out of communities by ruthlessly cutting councils’ budgets year on year. North Lanarkshire Council alone will need to find £67 million-worth of cuts over the next three years on top of the £228 million-worth of cuts that it had over the past decade.

I, too, congratulate my colleague Liz Smith on securing this important members’ business debate.

I will start my short contribution by sharing with members that I regularly visit Blantyre leisure centre with my daughter Charlotte. As members might be aware, Charlotte has just turned one, and she has gone swimming since she was four months old. She loves the water, and she has taken to paddling her legs in her swimming ring as a duck takes to water. I want Charlotte to be a confident swimmer. That is why swimming pools are so important. Swimming is a vital life skill and, without our swimming pools, children and young people’s lives are put at risk.

Further, without swimming pools, talent would also be stifled, as Liz Smith has pointed out. Here in Scotland, we have developed talented people who have gone on to become some of the most successful and well-known Olympians and decorated GB medallists.

We need to save our pools in order to develop and nurture sporting talent but also—and this is most important—to save lives. Recently, I went back to the Sir Matt Busby centre in Bellshill, where I first learned to swim. I was one of the fortunate school pupils in North Lanarkshire to benefit from free swimming lessons during my last year in primary school, something that has long been cut due to reductions in council budgets. Budget cuts have devastating consequences for our communities and, if the Government cannot find a fair settlement for councils, I fear that a number of public swimming pools will close for good.

I want to finish by talking about a fantastic bunch of parents and talented young people at the Bellshill Sharks Amateur Swimming Club, which was founded in 1968. When I had the pleasure of attending one of their swimming sessions, I spoke to some of the young people, who showed me the medals that they had won during swimming meets and, of course, told me the history of the club that they are so proud of. Parents told me how much personal time they give up in order to fit in training and attend the various competitions that their children participate in. The club is a community and it gives young people more than just a vital life skill; it gives them a sporting hobby and friendship as well as routine and discipline.

Not that long ago, the Bellshill Sharks were worried about their home in the Sir Matt Busby centre, which they feared might not reopen after the pandemic. It took pressure from myself and other councillors at that point before the council would confirm that the centre would reopen. However, that threat is still there, because North Lanarkshire Council has to find £60 million-worth of cuts over the next three years, on top of the £228 million-worth of cuts that have been made over the past decades. The fact of the matter is that there is nothing left for councils to cut, which is why we are seeing councils up and down the country making painful decisions that will have detrimental impacts on our communities.

I thank the minister for giving way, and I will not take up too much of her time.

Can I just clarify that no money went to swimming pools from the block grant? Is that what the minister is confirming to us this afternoon?