Chamber and committees

Today’s debate has highlighted the progress that we have made in Scotland, but it also underscores the urgent need to continue to improve miscarriage care. We have heard powerful contributions from colleagues, and I thank those who have shared their personal testimony. It has been hugely powerful, and I have a massive amount of respect for those who have done so. I, like Monica Lennon, have not experienced this horror—and I sincerely hope that we never do—but I thank the campaigners who have been mentioned for the change that they have made.

One of the gaps that we need to address is how employers, in particular, treat miscarriage. We should be making that support consistent for everyone. Some employers might provide sick leave or bereavement leave, but very few provide dedicated miscarriage leave that accurately reflects the physical and psychological trauma that women are going through. Some employers are doing the right thing, but it is not a guarantee. We should be pushing for standardised miscarriage leave, based on what women need to recover properly.

I add my voice to Brian Whittle’s ask with regard to ensuring that stillborn babies have the opportunity to have a birth certificate. It is hugely important for some in their grief journey that there is an official acknowledgement that their baby was here. We have recognised that through the memorial book of pregnancy and baby loss, and I think that that is another logical step.

Bob Doris’s speech was hugely powerful, and his reflections on the chaos around miscarriage and the ability of families to take in information were really insightful. It is important to ensure that, as with other forms of bereavement, people can get support when they are ready, not just in the immediate aftermath of loss.

Psychological support for recurrent miscarriage is a must, both at the time of those miscarriages and for those who become pregnant again. The anxiety experienced in pregnancy is quite something. I originally wrote “in early pregnancy”, but miscarriage covers up to 24 weeks, which for some will be more than halfway through their pregnancy. The anxiety does not go away beyond 12 weeks, and I would welcome some detail from the Government on how we ensure that those with recurrent losses are supported properly.

I welcome the early scan provision in the framework, along with other enhanced physical measures. However, we need to make sure that mum stays well, with appropriate mental wellbeing support. Providing early contact with a scan before 12 weeks means that those invaluable relationships between patients and midwives can be built. Beyond eight weeks, many women around Scotland will have access to their notes through the Badger Notes app. For those who have not seen the app, I can say that it provides women with the ability to see their blood test results, alongside other resources that are relevant to pregnancy.

I apologise if this is indeed in the framework—I have not managed to fully make my way through it yet—but I wonder whether the Government has given any consideration to what the app can do to support those who have had recurrent miscarriages or who are going through a miscarriage. Moreover, the app lists all of a user’s previous pregnancies, and I would be grateful if the minister could tell me whether she has considered giving those with a history of previous miscarriages the ability to ask for those pregnancies not to appear in it.

Those reflections reinforce the importance of ensuring that every woman and every family affected by pregnancy loss receives compassionate and high-quality care. The “Delivery Framework for Miscarriage Care in Scotland” represents a crucial opportunity to establish consistent, dignified and compassionate care for all. However, it will only be effective if we continue to push for real, tangible change to ensure that improved data collection, expanded specialist services and stronger psychological support become a reality, not just an ambition.

We must also continue to listen to the voices of those with lived experience, because their insights should shape our policies and the delivery of our services. This sort of work across Government, our healthcare system and support organisations will continue to make a real difference to the lives of so many.

It is very clear that the UK Government has abandoned the workers at Grangemouth. The workers are rightly angry that both Governments have left them to the will of a billionaire who would rather play fantasy football than look after his workers. The decision has the potential to devastate the town that I grew up in, and I am angry on behalf of all of those workers. With the greatest of respect to the cabinet secretary, I note that anything that might be generated by project willow, and by others, is potentially too far down the road to solve the immediate and urgent issue facing us.

I have not yet lost hope that the Scottish Government will meaningfully step in, save the jobs and ensure a sustainable future for the site. Will the cabinet secretary now step in to address this increasingly urgent situation?

The MAT standards are supposed to drive down the number of deaths and ensure that people with lived and living experience see an improvement in how services are delivered. I welcome the increasing implementation of the standards, but we have to ensure that they are actually changing services. How is the cabinet secretary ensuring that the feedback from living experience is taken into account and used to further drive improvements in service delivery?

Section 22 of the bill precludes provisions that relate to reserved matters, which has raised concerns about Scottish ministers’ ability to designate an approved substance for assisted dying, because that designation is critical for the bill’s practical implementation. I appreciate that Mr McArthur said that not everything needs to be in the bill, but the practical implications are obviously of interest to the committee. What steps or negotiations are being considered with the UK Government to resolve that issue, and, if the issue could result in a delay, how could that be managed in the interim?

I turn to another issue in the same vein. The bill grants ministers the power to set qualifications for participating doctors and requires them to take account of a second opinion. However, it is the case that some of those aspects might also be affected by reserved matters such as the regulation of health professionals. What deliberations have you had on that matter in particular? Dr Ward might wish to contribute on that point. What collaborative processes do you envisage, and what prospects are there for securing the necessary consents from the UK Government? What overlap is there, in relation to that provision in particular, between the bill here and the bill that is in the UK Parliament?

Good morning. I want to ask about how the loss of Erasmus+ has affected research and the overlaps in that regard. Projects such as horizon overlapped quite nicely with Erasmus+ and enabled the exchange of research, especially for honours, masters and PhD students. How is the loss of that affecting the research landscape in higher education? After the initial responses, I will ask Sai to speak about how that is affecting students’ choices of projects and so on.

Thank you. Sai, can you tell us how the ecosystem that Lesley Jackson has set out and the loss of some of those overlaps feel to students who are trying to access projects or early-career research?

That was great. Thank you. Roy, are there similar collaborative things that have become more difficult for your sector with the loss of that interconnectivity and collaboration?

Sarah, what do we need from the current schemes in order to make things better overall for youth work? Is it about making it easier to apply for things or overcoming some of the anecdotal barriers that I am sure you have been hearing about from various organisations, to ensure that we can have vibrant collaboration across youth work organisations, too?

Thank you.