Chamber and committees

I have tried hard to listen to what has been said. At the start of the debate we heard about how there has been great success in Scotland with breastfeeding—that 46 per cent of mothers are breastfeeding. When we dig into the statistics and look at the detail, however, we find that twice as many mothers from the most affluent areas as mothers from the most deprived areas are breastfeeding . The figures are 63 per cent versus 31 per cent. I find it hard to hear things from the Government about deprived communities and deprivation when such statistics are covered up in what is presented to us, as happened at the start of this debate.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in today’s debate. It is personal to me, having two relatively young daughters and many friends who have children in this age bracket.

I will always be exceptionally grateful to those individuals who have supported my family, but, having been through the system recently, I have no doubt that it is under great pressure and huge stress. That leads to many people experiencing patchy delivery and poor outcomes. There is a growing sense that our health and social care system is now in a position where it is good at responding to emergencies but it is not always there to meet the care needs, particularly of mums and their babies. That should make us pretty sad.

I have spoken previously in a debate about support for the whole family. I do not think that we can even get to that point, because we are failing at the first hurdle when it comes to pre-birth and post-birth support.

We know that when families get off to a bad start it makes everything more difficult and can have lasting impacts for children. The quality of services and support on offer for mothers and young children, both clinical and in the community, causes me serious concern. I say that on the basis of my experience in my constituency and listening to colleagues in debates around the country.

We cannot fault the Government when it comes to ambitious rhetoric. Like other speakers, I do not aim this criticism at Jenni Minto—I have a great deal of respect for her and believe her to be a very hard-working minister. However, we are doing families and our young people a disservice if we do not own up to the reality that we often fall a long way short when it comes to delivering a Scotland that is the best country in which to be born and grow up.

I do not want to fall into the trap of getting bogged down in petty debate about the baby box. Equally, we have to be grown up enough to say that, although the baby box is nice and is helpful for many people, it does not fundamentally shift the dial for many of our most vulnerable families. After 16 years, if that is the best that things get, we need to be asking serious questions.

I appreciate and agree with much of what Jenni Minto is saying. However, does she not recognise that, at the moment, the waits for speech and language services across much of the country are simply unacceptable?

So, on balance, you are not in support of the legislation as proposed.

I will just put that issue to one side and ask you to step away from that position, because obviously we are focusing on the delegated powers in the bill. Do you think that, with the model that the Government has opted for, there is a problem with the specific delegated powers?

Thank you.

I want to come back on your point about the number of independent law firms. I assume that the numbers that you gave relate to big whole-service law firms.

I want to ask about the guarantee fund. Paragraph 6 of schedule 1 makes further provision about the guarantee fund. Commenting on the power, the Law Society noted:

“This has the potential for significant change to be made which may adversely impact ... the Fund”.

It also noted that there is

“no requirement for the Lord President’s consent”.

Will you elaborate further and give your view on the power and the consultation requirements that are associated with it?

I want to ask about section 46(3), which allows Scottish ministers to make, by regulations, further provision to reconcile regulatory conflicts, with the requirement again to get the Lord President’s consent before doing so. I am aware that you have questioned the need for this subsection, too, but do you have any further comments on it?

In which case, I will move on to ask about section 49, which I know has already been touched on, at least in passing. It provides that the Scottish ministers may establish by regulations a body with a view to it becoming a category 1 regulator and may specify

“circumstances under which the Scottish ministers may directly authorise and regulate legal businesses.”

The bill states that ministers must obtain the consent of the Lord President before making such regulations and, even then, make them only if they believe them to be necessary as a last resort.

Again, I am interested in your reflections on that delegated power and any other concerns that you have with it that have not already been stated. Do you consider that it is effectively hemmed in?