Chamber and committees

I am sorry that the cabinet secretary is unwell and unable to join us in the chamber. I hope that she feels better soon.

I will limit my remarks to amendment 64. Labour members will support all the amendments in the group. I know that we are pushed for time today.

The inspiration behind amendment 64 is no secret; it is the Scottish Trades Union Congress’s trailblazing “Food for thought” campaign, which is about making real the rights of all young people to food, education and fun. The campaign is widely supported by MSPs and political parties, all trade unions, anti-poverty charities, and children and young people’s organisations.

Amendment 64 would require the good food nation plan of a relevant authority to set out how it intends to ensure

“(a) the provision of universal free school meals for all children and young people”

and

(b) high uptake”

of meals in ways that are

“inclusive ... and free of stigma”.

It would also require the authority to set out how it intends to ensure

“(c) the fulfilment of children and young people’s right to high-quality, nutritious food”

during holiday periods.

Building on my child poverty amendments 74 and 79, which were agreed to at stage 2, amendment 64 seeks to strengthen section 7 of the bill. As we have heard, section 7 places a requirement on public bodies to produce good food nation plans. Section 7 of the bill, as amended at stage 2, makes it clear that that relates to areas for which public bodies have responsibility. We are not trying to throw in things for which public bodies have no responsibility. In the bill, it is quite clear that there would not be duplication of efforts.

We should all agree that building a good food nation must start with getting things right for all children and young people. Universal provision of free school meals is a crucial policy mechanism that would help to alleviate poverty, mitigate food insecurity and support efforts to tackle the poverty-related attainment gap. It would also be critically important in embedding whole-school community approaches to nutrition.

Including universal provision of free school meals in the good food nation plan would build on the Scottish Government’s very welcome commitment to incorporate into Scots law the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Expansion of universal school meals provision would also help to deliver the Scottish Government’s aspirations to significantly reduce child poverty and to close the attainment gap, in addition to its aspiration that Scotland become a good food nation by 2025.

I think that it is strange that the bill is silent on the rights of children and young people to universal provision of free school meals. In advance of the debate, members will have received a letter from Roz Foyer, who is the general secretary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress. The STUC represents more than half a million workers in Scotland, including teachers—some of whom are having to feed schoolchildren out of their own pockets—and the workers who staff our school canteens. It is important that we remember that.

I am grateful to Mairi Gougeon for her time and her willingness to engage on the issues. However, I feel that by not supporting amendment 64 the Scottish Government is missing a trick. We might have good intentions and good policies, but if we do not put them into action we are not helping people who need such help.

Just last week, at First Minister’s question time, we were reminded of the rise in hidden hunger that is happening in our schools right now. Young people have told the Scottish children’s charity Aberlour that their friends who are not eligible for free school meals are going hungry at lunch time, while others are deliberately saving up their lunch money to give it back to their parents. That is just shameful.

It is positive that Scottish Conservatives and Scottish Liberal Democrats are backing amendment 64. When I listen to Scotland’s children and young people, they say that they want all members of the Scottish Parliament to work together to make their rights real. Ross Greer, who is not in the chamber at the moment, might think that it is somehow a disgrace that parties would work together; I think that it is positive that we do so now. I know that today’s vote might not reflect it, but we are now in the position where everybody in Parliament wants to expand universal provision of free school meals beyond nursery and primary schools and into our secondary schools. The issues and challenges do not end at the gates of our primary schools.

It is regrettable that the Government and its coalition partners did not have the foresight to bring such issues within the scope of the bill; it is always more challenging for back benchers and Opposition members to do so. However, I take at face value the good will that the cabinet secretary has expressed. My plea is that if members decide not to support amendment 64, they recognise the existence of cross-cutting issues on food, education and the rights of children and young people, and that every minister in Government redoubles their efforts to ensure that children are not going without food.

We must question whether we are doing all that we can. If we vote against the amendment, we will not be doing all that we can and will have to come back again, tomorrow and the next day to try to do better. That is what children and young people are demanding from each and every one of us. The STUC is saying, with one clear voice, that workers who staff our schools and look after children across Scotland will no longer accept crumbs from the Government’s table. We have to do more. We must start focusing on what we can do instead of what we cannot do.

I welcome the feedback from the cabinet secretary and I fully understand the need for legislation to be well drafted and for it not to have unintended consequences. When I met the cabinet secretary yesterday, I said that some of the objections that I was hearing had parallels to objections to period poverty legislation before the political will for it existed. I ask Green Party members to reflect on that.

This should not be about party politics and who lodges the amendment: we have time to get this right. People should look to their consciences; I know that there are back-bench members who really want to back amendment 64, so it will be a real shame if they are pressured by their party whips to do otherwise.

I am sorry. It is a shame that the Green Party has forgotten all that.

Is Ariane Burgess now saying that the Scottish Green Party’s position has changed? As a party, are they now in favour of means testing? What in the amendment or bill relates to independent schools? Which public body has responsibility for independent schools?

I welcome what the cabinet secretary has said and its tone, but there is a need for action. I know that she has raised a concern about children who are home schooled and how things would work if the issue that I have raised was covered in the good food plan. Is it the Government’s view that children who are home schooled should be excluded from accessing universal free school meals? We know from our constituency mailbags that many children are home schooled because they have additional support needs and the schools have not been properly resourced to meet their needs. What will the Government do in the meantime to support those children if they are experiencing hunger?

I will speak to amendments 56 and 68. I welcome Rachael Hamilton’s amendments and confirm that Labour will support them. As I said earlier, the rights of children and young people should be at the heart of Scotland’s plans to become a good food nation. Amendments 56 and 68 would require Scottish ministers and relevant authorities to

“have regard to the importance of communicating in a way that is effective in engaging children and young people“

when consulting on good food nation plans.

I previously introduced proposals at stage 2 that were similar to amendments 56 and 68; unfortunately, they were not supported. Following further discussion with the cabinet secretary, I believe that we have reached a position of agreement on the amendments, so I hope that members will support amendments 56 and 68.

Amendments 56 and 68 are intended to ensure that consultation is carried out in a way that takes account of the fact that there might be a need to take a different approach to consultation in order to encourage children and young people to take part. The amendments are intended to help to ensure that the voices of children and young people are heard.

I really appreciate that, Presiding Officer, because you can probably hear that I am struggling with my voice today. We are talking about the importance of communication, which obviously requires good listening skills.

I am grateful to the STUC and other organisations that have backed amendments 56 and 68, which are linked to other amendments to which I have spoken already. Together with Rachael Hamilton’s amendments, they are important, because they will strengthen the bill.

I congratulate Collette Stevenson on securing the debate and bringing together members from across the chamber who, it is clear, are very passionate and concerned and want to make progress on the issue. It is always good in members’ business debates when we find out what members really care about. It is also really good that we now have a cross-party group on medicinal cannabis. That is a forum for change to happen, and I hope that, in due course, one of the ministers will be able to come along to it.

As a member of that group, I am pleased to be working with people across the Parliament and outside it. Therefore, it is good to see Anna Ross in the gallery, along with Lisa Quarrell. I can also see Councillor Monique McAdams, who has been a real ally and support to Lisa.

It cannot be left to individual parents and individual families to fight this battle; it is a battle for all of us. Much has been said about the barriers and the challenges, but the job that we have now is to focus on what we in the Scottish Parliament can do, rather than the things that we cannot do.

I spoke to Lisa about Cole’s situation. She is anxious that we make progress not just for Cole but for anybody who needs the medication. Lisa pointed out to me that the SIGN guideline that we have in Scotland is now quite old—I think that it is from 2013—so it is perhaps due an update. It would be good to hear from the minister in his closing speech what the situation is with that.

I will focus on Cole Thomson. I have mentioned him in the chamber before, so he is not a stranger to the Parliament or, indeed, to the First Minister or to Jeane Freeman, the former Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport. When a parent has to become a carer for their child, it is absolutely exhausting but, when they also have to battle against systems and institutions and fight for everything, it is heartbreaking to watch. It is good that, in East Kilbride and Central Scotland, we have a number of MSPs who are willing to support Lisa, but change needs to come at Government level.

Cole is an exceptional wee boy. I have had the privilege of meeting him. What is really encouraging about his journey and the fact that he is now on the medication is not only that it is keeping him alive and seizure free, but that it has given him back his education and his hopes and dreams. I asked Lisa what Cole, who is nine and in primary 5, would say if he was here. She said that he said:

“I just don’t want to go back to being sick again and to go back to being in a wheelchair. I want to be a black belt.”

How wonderful is that? It is our duty not only to offer sympathy and warm words, but to show Cole and other children, such as Murray, what we will do to help them to realise their hopes and dreams. I think that Cole will achieve that black belt and a lot more, but he will need our help to get there.

It is also really important to mention the people who are willing to speak up and put their heads above the parapet. Mrs Graham is principal teacher in Cole’s school. She talks about the difference that the medication has made to his life. She is really proud of him because of that. She has written to the NHS and the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, Humza Yousaf, to say that she has a duty of care to meet Cole’s educational needs, but she also says:

“Surely you”—

not you, Presiding Officer, but the NHS and the cabinet secretary—

“also have a duty of care: a duty to ensure that Cole gets the correct medication and treatment to give him the best quality of life.”

Tracy—I have forgotten her surname—from Unison, who works closely with Lisa Quarrell, reminds us that, in the NHS, we have the right to get treatment free at the point of need. Surely Cole has that right. Surely he has the right to grow up in Scotland with the right support and resources.

It has been a good debate. It has highlighted not only individuals who need support now, but the fact that we need to get it right for the people who do not have a voice—the people whose mums are perhaps not quite as vocal as Cole’s mum. I am keen to hear what the minister has to say because I think that members are all on the same page. We all want to go in the same direction—we want to give little boys such as Cole Thomson hope and the route map to get to that black belt.

Good morning, Franziska. It has been a pleasure to hear your contribution, so I thank you. Perhaps the committee could visit Freiburg at some point in the future.

In our inquiry into local government, we have heard many complaints about how slow councils can be in making decisions, particularly in the planning process. I am interested to hear that, in Freiburg, your city planning office is regarded as a think tank and an agenda setter.

Could you tell us a bit more about that? How do you ensure, in your municipality, that your work is widely recognised and appreciated, and that the staff feel motivated? Clearly, you feel very proud of the work that you are doing. Is that a feeling that the staff share? Do people want to work for the municipality?

Thank you.

I know that we do not have a lot of time, convener, so I will shortly pass back to you, but it would be interesting to hear from Freiburg in the future about the planning workforce, because we have questions about that workforce in Scotland. We have had a reduction in our planning workforce, so it would be interesting to see a comparison. In the interests of time, however, I will pass back to you, convener.

To ask the Scottish Government when the scoping exercise into the availability of specialist services within national health service boards for miscarriage and unexpected pregnancy complications will be completed. (S6O-01120)

It is a pleasure to speak in this extended debate. I congratulate Fergus Ewing, not only on securing the debate and getting this time in the chamber—and bringing some unexpected sunshine with him—but on the fact that so many members have taken part. That is encouraging and I have certainly learned a few things in the debate already.

When I saw that the motion and debate had been secured, I felt motivated to come and take part and listen tonight because of the work that I am doing with colleagues on the Net Zero Energy and Transport Committee—Liam Kerr and Mark Ruskell are also members. We are currently running an energy crisis inquiry looking at what needs to be done in the here and now as well as at longer-term actions. We will report on that shortly.

I was struck by comments that we heard from the fuel poverty charity Energy Action Scotland just a few weeks ago. It said that, unless the UK Government and the Scottish Government take bolder action now, there will be

“a catastrophic loss of life”—[Official Report, Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, 26 April 2022; c 23]

this winter. I think that that is something that is very much in the minds of all of us when we think about our casework—the emails from people reaching out to us for help and assurance. I come to this thinking very much about the cost of living crisis and how that interacts with the climate and nature emergencies.

The young people of Scotland very much keep our feet to the fire on this. It is a pleasure to be back doing school visits and hearing from young people. Before the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP26—I was doing a lot of that work. I have to say to all colleagues and all parties—I do so from the back benches; I do not get to speak in the chamber very often now—that we cannot just retreat to our party lines, our slogans and the usual banter. This is much more serious than any of that. We have to work together.

The Government has a massive job to do, as all Governments do, and the Net Zero Energy and Transport Committee has a very important role to play. In that committee, we try to leave our party politics at the door in order to work together. We need more of these debates because, frankly, since COP26 finished I feel like we have gone back to our business-as-usual approach, and we cannot have that. Quite often, the very important issues, as we are discussing tonight, are left to members’ business debates when they should be given Government time and Opposition party time. Let us look at that.