Chamber and committees

First, I acknowledge the progress that Scotland has made in improving infant nutrition overall. The act that many members have mentioned, as well as several policies and initiatives aimed at creating a supportive environment for nursing mothers, have helped to make progress. All those efforts are a commendable step forward towards a healthier and accepting environment for breastfeeding mothers, and they make up a strong legislative framework to protect those mothers and their infants across a broad range of public spaces, while serving to encourage the practice across our country.

I take this opportunity to mention the incredible work that health boards and third sector partners are carrying out across the country. In Central Scotland, initiatives such as the Breastfeeding Network Forth Valley and breastfeeding groups across the NHS Lanarkshire area offer an incredible range of support to mothers and their infants. Several groups run weekly and offer mums the opportunity to get advice on breastfeeding and to share their concerns with experts and one other.

There is no doubt that those are all significant steps towards supporting breastfeeding practices, but there is still work to be done, especially to overcome the barriers that remain in place. We cannot talk about breastfeeding without addressing the fact that infant feeding differences are strongly tied to a mother’s socioeconomic status. Wealth disparities affect how long a mother can continue to breastfeed. Factors such as poverty, food scarcity and income insecurity are all significant challenges to breastfeeding. Therefore, we must also tackle social determinants of health, alongside the legal protections that have been put in place. Supporting mothers and acknowledging the barriers that they face is key to addressing the gaps in breastfeeding practices and the uptake of breastfeeding across our country.

For many, returning to work is a time when breastfeeding stops or is supplemented with formula, due to practical issues such as shift times, storing breast milk safely or even being able to pump while at work. The practical challenges will be markedly different for those working in an office environment with supportive colleagues, as opposed to working in a public-facing role or a manual role, where even wearing a pump may be difficult. As I have said, we have made great strides in what we want to see, and I am sure that there are some phenomenal workplaces that support women to breastfeed, but the practicalities are one of the issues that we need to overcome. I am very pleased that it is the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health who is leading the debate, but a lot of work needs to be done in some of her colleagues’ portfolios to ensure that we can make the next strides forward.

Mothers, as many members have said, should be supported, not shamed, regardless of how they choose to feed their babies. We must acknowledge that breastfeeding is a personal choice and, while promoting the benefits of breastfeeding, we must also respect and support those who, for various reasons, cannot breastfeed. Every mother’s journey is unique, and creating an environment of understanding and acceptance is crucial in dispelling judgment and fostering inclusivity. For some, there are physical, emotional and practical reasons why breastfeeding is just not for them and their baby. We need to ensure that, in our pursuit of higher rates of breastfeeding and better experiences of breastfeeding, we do not stigmatise those who cannot. We need to ensure that the most important thing is good growth and nutrition for the baby.

Even though we have come a long way, several of the barriers to breastfeeding are rooted in stigma and societal attitudes. Even in spaces where breastfeeding is encouraged, many mothers continue to feel uneasy breastfeeding in public, because they fear conflict or judgment from strangers. That fear is not always felt evenly, with mothers who are younger, experiencing poverty or from marginalised communities often reporting increased surveillance and stigma. That is why several women routinely choose not to breastfeed outside the home. For those who do, the experience is often uncomfortable. The legal protections for breastfeeding in public are often present, but they are not always widely respected.

It is crucial that we empower mothers with the knowledge that they need to make decisions based on their individual circumstances, free from judgment. One key aspect of that is the need to dispel myths surrounding breastfeeding, as misinformation often contributes to unnecessary anxiety and deters some mothers from choosing to breastfeed. By promoting accurate and accessible information, we can empower women to make decisions that align with their personal circumstances, and we can work towards countering the stigma and changing many of the attitudes that weigh down on mothers.

We must also work harder to tackle the socioeconomic barriers that make breastfeeding impossible for some. It is important to point out that safe breast milk, infant formula that is prepared correctly with safe water, or a combination of both, are fine choices for full-term infants. For meaningful interventions that lead to positive outcomes for infants, we need support for the logistical needs of disadvantaged families, as privilege and better health outcomes go hand in hand.

The debate around celebrating and supporting breastfeeding in Scotland is an opportunity for us to unite in our efforts to support families and their newborns. We commend the progress that has been made, but we also recognise the need for continued advocacy, education and targeted measures to deal with the socioeconomic barriers that burden many mothers across Scotland. By promoting informed decision making, dispelling myths and addressing the stigma that surrounds breastfeeding, we can work together to create a society in which mothers feel empowered and supported in their choices. However, we must always approach that discussion with empathy and a shared commitment to valuing and supporting each family’s distinct journey.

In my speech, I mentioned how many of the factors for improving breastfeeding rates lie outside the minister’s portfolio. Will she take into conversations that she has with other ministers and cabinet secretaries the need for them to look at how workplaces and others enhance their support for breastfeeding?

That is okay. Thank you.

It is sometimes difficult to achieve a shift to preventative spend when there is acute need in the system. I am pleased that a consultation on a public health supplement, which my party has long backed, has been proposed through the budget. Do you believe that such a measure could help to drive preventative spend?

Good morning, cabinet secretary. Preventative spend is often difficult to track and quantify, particularly once it goes into health board budgets, and the health benefits often take a long time to show up in population health data. How does the Scottish Government track and evaluate preventative spend? Do you believe that the data needs to be improved if we are to further target preventative spend?

The cabinet secretary and I have had many conversations about vaping and its impact on health. Given how quickly novel products can affect health, what impact are they having on preventative spend budgets? Is the way in which we allocate those budgets flexible enough to adapt if those products are having an in-year impact on health?

I thank Collette Stevenson for securing this debate on the relocation of the FCDO office out of East Kilbride. The decision, which was made abruptly by the UK Government, will have far-reaching consequences for FCDO workers, their families and, as we have already heard, the wider community in East Kilbride.

Abercrombie house employs upwards of 1,000 staff members and is estimated to generate £30 million for the local economy. I do not think that we can overstate its contribution to the social and economic fabric of the town. The decision, which was made with no prior consultation, is deeply concerning, and the dedicated workers at Abercrombie house have been instrumental to the constituency. The relocation will not only impact the hard-working staff but create a massive shortfall for local services and stores in the business community, triggering a chain reaction that will adversely affect East Kilbride as a whole.

East Kilbride was once touted as an example of where there had been UK Government investment outside large cities. The decision starkly contradicts the commitments that were made by the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities as recently as 2021.

The reasoning that has been provided for the move is weak and ill founded. Mr Simpson said that there would be no job losses in the FCDO. However, that misses the key point, which is that jobs are being lost in East Kilbride. The decision is not about a mere bureaucratic shift for those who work at Abercrombie house. People’s livelihoods are neither expendable nor easily transferable. The relocation of the office will force workers to deal with the choice between working further from home, changing their job or, in the most extreme circumstances, potentially having to give up their job. Not all workers have access to a car, and workers moving to and from where they live by car or train represents another cost to them during a cost of living crisis. There can potentially be extra childcare costs and longer travel, and therefore longer working days.

Those who work flexibly due to caring responsibilities, disability or other personal circumstances now have a real dilemma. Shifting the jobs outside East Kilbride unfairly burdens workers, and it is disrespectful to assume that those dedicated workers can seamlessly transition to an office in Glasgow. A worker who wishes to remain anonymous has been quoted as saying:

“It’s going to take 40 minutes each way into town and back which adds to your working day—there will be childcare costs involved in that, there will be train and bus fares. Although FCDO say they will cover them for three years that’s not good enough, nobody wants to move.”

Levelling up has been touted as a pivotal element of the UK Government’s pledge to reduce regional disparities and promote local economies. The closure of the FCDO office in East Kilbride directly contradicts those commitments. It sends an alarming message about the UK Government’s dedication to regional development, and it calls into question the promises that it has made to Scotland until very recently. The same UK Government that claimed to be investing more than £2.4 billion in Scotland to empower local communities, drive innovation and enhance economic opportunities is now undermining its own commitment to addressing geographic inequalities. Moving valuable jobs away from communities, particularly at the expense of the people of East Kilbride, contradicts the very principles that the UK Government says that it supports. It raises questions about the sincerity of its efforts to promote opportunities in all regions.

As recently as 2021, the UK Government made a commitment to send an additional 500 workers to the facility. Now we have another decision instead. We should join together to strongly advocate the preservation of the jobs and expertise of, and the valuable contributions made by, the workers at Abercrombie house.

I reiterate my disappointment about and frustration with the UK Government’s abrupt decision to relocate the FCDO office out of East Kilbride. The repercussions are keenly felt in the community, and they cast doubts on the UK Government’s commitments to levelling up. I urge the UK Government to reconsider and reverse that ill-advised decision, and I emphasise the need for a renewed commitment to the workers of Abercrombie house and East Kilbride.

What work is being done to support smaller teams to ensure that they can nurture local talent and give young people a positive place to play? I raise that because, in the past few years, some smaller clubs—Livingston Football Club and Greenock Morton Football Club were just two of them—decided to scrap their youth systems altogether because of some of the criteria behind Project Brave. What is being done to ensure that those clubs get the support that they need?

Just to piggyback off one of Ruth Maguire’s questions, given the SFA’s large take from tickets, do you believe that greater consideration should be given to the voice of fans over broadcaster demands, particularly on issues such as fixture scheduling, which is something that we have seen issues with in recent years?

Is that a no?