Chamber and committees

There is so much to get into with all of these issues. I am particularly interested in the socioeconomic factors that affect, or create barriers for, many women and girls in sport. Do you see that when people have to access materials or kit? Sport is often played in a very particular way that is geared towards men. Many aspects of life are male-centric and dealt with through a patriarchal structure. Does that add cost barriers to access for some sports?

Thank you, convener.

I am detecting an openness to consider the matter, as social care and the role of the PSC develop, and that there can be a conversation on that.

This theme is about the intersectionality of the issues that impact on women and girls in sport. Your report covers various areas, but I am interested in LGBTQ+ young women in particular and their access. How do we support those women to feel secure, supported and safe in sport? You have touched on that already, but I wonder whether you want to add anything to that.

I want to pick up on the previous theme of the discriminatory language that we hear, and the fact that clubs and governing bodies do not always tackle homophobia appropriately. We have seen a lot of focus on that recently. Obviously, that has been more in the male space, and it has been to do with male players in football in particular. However, it is clear that there are issues around homophobic language in women’s football in particular, and there is often stereotyping of women who play football. Did that abuse and that language being a real barrier and clubs and governing bodies maybe not dealing with that appropriately come through in any meaningful way?

In a previous answer, you touched on the potential for gym classes and sporting activities to come with an element of childcare attached. Do you feel that that is important in creating more flexible options, so that people can work sport into their life?

Yes, of course.

I, too, thank Roz McCall for bringing this important debate to the chamber and for speaking so powerfully and personally about her commitment to these issues. I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak on behalf of Scottish Labour, and I am also pleased to do so as the chair of the newly established cross-party group on care leavers, which was set up in the current session of Parliament.

Adoption UK has produced “The Adoption Barometer”, to which the motion refers, which is a highly useful resource that provides illuminating insights into the experience of families with adopted children in Scotland. It is encouraging that, in most areas, Scotland is performing comparatively well on the levels of education support that are provided for families with adopted children. As we have heard, however, experience of the support that is offered is often patchy and not consistent. Doing comparatively better cannot be the limit of our ambition for these young people.

Although the situation is better in Scotland than in the rest of the United Kingdom, only half of adoptive parents believe that teachers have a good understanding of the needs of care-experienced children. Let us be honest—that is simply not good enough.

That point was emphasised clearly in “The Promise” report, which highlighted the importance of teachers and school staff being appropriately trained to empower them to be fully aware of the challenges faced by care-experienced young people, and to equip them with skills to encourage those young people to support themselves and become more resilient—indeed, to reach the absolute limits of their potential.

Already in the debate today, and more broadly, we are hearing about the Promise and looking again at what was committed to in it and how we are delivering in those areas.

More broadly, it is critically important that the Government gets the Promise right and continues to deliver on that commitment, because, sadly, the reality for too many care-experienced young people and children is that much of their life has been shaped by broken promises—by adults who made commitments to them to improve their lives in one way or another and then failed to deliver.

As we have heard, the First Minister will be remembered in years to come for making those commitments to young people in the Promise. It is for all of us to commend her for focusing on care-experienced people, and particularly children and young people, and bringing the subject into the light of our national discourse and debate in a way that had perhaps not happened previously.

However, the First Minister’s resignation, which comes three years after the publication of the care review, provides an opportunity for us to pause, take breath and assess the effectiveness of the current approach and the impact of the Promise. There are some issues around accountability, and I know that concerns are being shared by third-sector organisations that work in this space.

An issue that has been raised with me is who in the Government will be accountable for delivery of the Promise, given the outgoing First Minister’s very personal commitment? Will it be the Minister for Children and Young People or the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, or will it be the equal responsibility of everyone in the Cabinet and all ministers? I think that we all want to see it as everyone’s responsibility but, very often, when something becomes the responsibility of everyone, it can quickly become the responsibility of no one.

I understand the rationale for having an organisation that is distinct from Government and seeks to be accountable to the people of Scotland for delivery of the Promise. That is important and admirable. However, we need to look at how we can have more parliamentary oversight of delivery of the Promise. Perhaps that could be achieved if we had specific ministerial responsibility or specific committee responsibility in this Parliament. We should consider all those things to ensure that all of us in this place hold the Government’s feet to the fire and indeed hold our own feet to the fire in relation to what we are trying to do for care-experienced young people in particular.

It is imperative that we do not fail care-experienced children and young people. As parliamentarians, we all have a responsibility to ensure that their voices and the voices of those who care for them are present in our debates and in every decision that we make in the chamber. Let us work together to ensure that our ambition matches the rhetoric and that it transforms into the meaningful change that care-experienced children and young people so richly deserve.

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its target to recruit 800 additional general practitioners by the end of 2027. (S6O-01988)

Audit Scotland has found that the Scottish Government will fail to meet its own target for increased GP numbers, which is indicative of its failure in workforce planning over many years. However, it is not just a recruitment issue. There is also a significant issue with capacity in GP surgeries. Surgeries are bursting at the seams, and the British Medical Association has found that 81 per cent of practices currently exceed capacity.

In the village of Neilston, which I represent, I spoke with GP partners of the Neilston medical centre, who told me that they are struggling to find the physical space to meet demand. They applied to the Scottish Government for loans to increase space, but the application was rejected. If the practice cannot expand, it might be forced to close its books. Why is the Government not giving GP surgeries the support that they need to expand the provision of general practice in their communities?