Seòmar agus comataidhean

The summit brought together people from clinical services, education, the Government, academia and policy. What key points were raised at the summit? How will the voice of people with lived experience be heard in relation to that issue, and where will it implement policy?

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the Royal College of Psychiatrists in Scotland on its proposal, “The future of provision for neurodevelopmental conditions”. (S6O-05303)

I thank Daniel Johnson for securing the debate. Daniel and I have had a couple of chats about this issue over the past couple of months, and we are all aware of the issue through our constituents. It is multilayered and multi-agency, and it impacts on children and families in health and education settings.

As many others will have done, I met the RCP in Scotland just last week to discuss its report. A few issues have come through. A key issue is the impact of neurodevelopmental conditions on many aspects of people’s lives; indeed, they have major emotional, social and health impacts.

Daniel Johnson’s point about access to diagnosis and medication is incredibly important. As we have discussed, there is also an issue in relation to GPs in health boards such as NHS Lothian. The issue of standardisation is really important, given that different GPs take different approaches.

Daniel Johnson mentioned the number of people who are impacted—NDCs impact roughly 10 to 15 per cent of the population. It is good that people are beginning to talk about the subject, because I think that such conditions are probably significantly underdiagnosed.

Between 2019 and 2021, the number of referrals increased between 500 and 800 per cent across health boards. That increase is being driven by several factors, one of which is that society is more aware of such conditions. In addition, there are unmet historical needs, as well as population growth. There is no denying the impact of Covid, either.

As the RCP has said, this debate is not necessarily about finance, although I will touch on that subject in a moment. More important is the need for standardisation of the referral, treatment and support pathways, and I hope that the minister will pick up on that issue—I have already had a quick chat with him about it. Without a nationally agreed pathway, it is difficult to see how we can move forward. The pressure will only grow in the coming months and years as people become more aware of neurodevelopmental conditions. Constituents regularly approach me on the subject, because, even within East Lothian, GPs take very different approaches.

As for what we should do in the future, which is the key issue addressed in the RCP report, there are some lessons that we should take on board. As part of the national autism implementation plan, a feasibility study on pathways was undertaken in 2021; the fact is that we are still talking about pathways, and there is still a need for such pathways to replace single-condition approaches. That is an important point. Those pathways must be accessible across the 14 health boards.

Daniel Johnson also talked about the need to deliver local stepped care pathway models. I interact with Stronger Together for Autism and Neurodivergence, which is very active in East Lothian, and that is one of its key aims. Such models include third sector and community services, such as access to self-help, peer support and a range of other services prior to—and, of course, after—diagnosis.

The RCP makes a number of other key recommendations that must be progressed. For example, it talks about the need for a governance framework and a competency-building framework at all levels of service provision.

Daniel Johnson touched on the delivery of the RCP’s four-tiered pathway proposal. The first tier involves a national public health approach, which is all about developing a public health campaign to promote awareness and understanding of neurodevelopmental conditions, with an emphasis on self-management.

The second tier is the availability of national self-help resources, which will involve creating a centralised platform to provide comprehensive self-help. The third is about establishing specialist third sector commissioning for NDCs. That provision must be localised; indeed, we have discussed the importance of that with NHS Lothian. There is almost a blame game going on, with the health board saying that GPs are responsible for local provision, and we need to clear that up. A key issue is how we prioritise investment in developing local provision, and there needs to be a multidisciplinary approach that includes clinicians and GPs.

There is much more that I could say, but I conclude by thanking Daniel Johnson for securing the debate. The issue will continue to be debated, and I look forward to hearing from the minister on the RCP’s report in particular.

I am pleased to speak in the debate as a member of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, and I thank the committee clerks and other members. I was not a member of the committee when it took evidence in its inquiry. However, I was at its meeting on 10 December, which was a reminder of not only why the British Sign Language (Scotland) Act 2015 remains one of the Parliament’s most important pieces of equalities legislation, but why the implementation process must continue to be sharpened.

I also thank Karen Adam for her work on the committee, and for—as has been mentioned—her work on the issue over a number of years and her passion for that work.

I start with the fundamentals: BSL is not just a communication tool—it is a language of Scotland, it is recognised in law, and it is part of our national cultural identity. The 2015 act is about language rights, not optional extras, and the rights that it establishes must be lived in practice and not left sitting on paper.

We heard powerful evidence from deaf organisations and BSL users, and their message was consistent. When the 2015 act works, it transforms access, confidence and participation. When it does not work, it is because systems have not shifted fast enough, leadership has not been clear enough, or delivery has been too uneven across public bodies. One of the challenges is ensuring access across all the different parts of Scotland.

That inconsistency is at the heart of the challenge. We have good practice in pockets—for example, public bodies that take their duties seriously, embed BSL into planning and work directly with deaf communities—but we also have areas where progress has been slow, reactive or reliant on one or two committed individuals. Rights cannot depend on the enthusiasm of a few. They need structure, accountability and resource.

I want to highlight three themes that came through strongly in the committee’s inquiry, and the first is leadership and accountability. Public bodies have legal duties under the 2015 act, but leadership determines whether those duties become realities. Too often, BSL is treated as an add-on and delivered through communications teams instead of being rooted in strategic planning. Where senior leaders take responsibility, we see measurable progress. Where they do not, we see drift.

I support the committee’s position that future BSL plans must include clear performance indicators—I asked the Deputy First Minister about that issue at committee this week—and that compliance must not be a tick-box exercise. We all have a part to play in ensuring that compliance is embedded. We need mechanisms that will ensure that, if Parliament sets a legal obligation, it will be met. That means early intervention when bodies are falling behind and greater transparency for BSL users on what progress is—and is not—being made.

The second theme that I will talk about is access to essential public services. The evidence that we heard from deaf individuals makes the stakes very clear. If someone cannot access a GP appointment, understand justice processes, communicate with their child’s school or engage with social security systems, their rights are compromised. There must not be a postcode lottery of BSL access. Some national health service boards have made real advances, particularly on digital access and interpreter pathways, but others are struggling with inconsistency and workforce pressures. That tells me that the system needs clearer expectations and firmer direction. Deaf communities should not have to navigate the gaps that we know exist.

We also heard concerns about education, especially in relation to BSL in early years and school settings. If we are serious about equality of opportunity, we must treat early access to language and communication as non-negotiable.

The third theme is the BSL workforce. That issue sits behind every other point that is raised. The 2015 act cannot deliver on its promise without a strong, sustainable, well-supported interpreting and translation workforce. The committee heard about long waits, overstretched interpreters and the pressure that is placed on BSL tutors and trainers. We need a workforce pipeline that reflects the scale of the act’s ambition. That includes training capacity, career progression, fair pay and national co-ordination. We simply cannot base a rights-based system on precarious labour, and deaf BSL users must be at the centre, shaping what good access looks like.

The committee’s job is not to point fingers; it is to ensure that the 2015 act does what this Parliament intended. However, scrutiny requires honesty, and the honest assessment is that progress has been made, but it is too uneven; that rights exist, but too many people still have to fight to have them respected; and that the system has created plans, but plans alone cannot guarantee delivery.

We have a responsibility as a committee and as a Parliament to push the system towards consistency, ambition and accountability. Let us not forget that the 2015 act remains world leading. Scotland was the first nation in the UK to recognise BSL in law. However, leadership means staying ahead and not looking back.

I want Scotland to be a country where BSL users never have to explain, justify or negotiate their right to equal access; where public bodies do not wait for reminders or complaints before acting; and where deaf communities genuinely shape policy, not as consultees but as partners. That was the spirit behind the act, and it must guide the next stage of implementation.

The committee will continue to scrutinise progress closely. Our role is to ensure that the lived experience of BSL users matches the promises that have been made in the chamber because, ultimately, equality is measured not by legislation alone but by the lives that people are able to lead.

To maximise the benefit of Scotland’s renewable energy resources and reach net zero, it is vital that we invest in storage capacity. Will the cabinet secretary say more about the role that storage systems play in our renewables mix and about how the Scottish Government is working to make sure that our local communities see the benefit of local infrastructure?

On Tuesday 18 November, I arrived at Hampden park for the opening of the gates at 6.15. I walked in with a few other early birds and stood thinking what the stadium would be like at 9.45. Four minutes in, after the Scott McTominay wonder goal, the dream was on. Then, Denmark scores and the old fears return. Shankland scores again. Hopes rise. Denmark scores again. Six minutes of injury time goes up and even now I feel good about our chances. The ball falls to Kieran Tierney. What a strike, what a feeling! Eight minutes into six minutes of injury time, and the nerves are shot. Kenny McLean wins the ball and shoots. What an incredible feeling as the ball hits the back of the net—“Freed from Desire” blasts out and it sinks in: Scotland have qualified. The passion and love for football is unrivalled. The whole country goes crazy; scenes from pubs and homes are shown from all over Scotland. My flights and accommodation are booked. The ticket scramble now awaits.

What does qualifying for the world cup mean to football more generally in Scotland? It means a few things. It must leave a legacy for our youth game, with investment in the grass roots and, of course, the elite youth set-up—I say that as someone who had the pleasure to coach at that level with Hibernian for 11 years. I note that the Scottish Football Association recently announced that it will not continue its performance schools, which produced players such as Billy Gilmour. There is also talk of reducing support to Club Academy Scotland’s youth academies, which would be a retrograde step. We need further investment in those academies, so that players can play for our clubs at a younger age. We need further investment in the women’s and girls’ clubs and academies. The success of the investment in academies by the French Football Federation and the English Football Association demonstrates that. On the back of the financial benefits of the world cup, we need to invest in our youth game and our women’s game, and we will reap the benefits of doing so.

Many of us have campaigned for Scotland matches to be shown on terrestrial television. Thankfully, a deal was agreed before the Denmark game, which meant that those who were not fortunate enough to have tickets could enjoy—and endure—every minute of the qualifying campaign on BBC Scotland, and a generation of Scotland fans were able to witness something that they had never witnessed before in their lifetime. However, in the aftermath of that game, one thing that was overlooked was that the deal with the BBC to broadcast the qualifying matches ran only until the end of that campaign, and it is likely that future qualifying campaigns will again be available only on subscription services. I believe that the home nations’ international matches and women’s competitive matches should be available for all to watch and should be included in Ofcom’s list of category A sporting events, which must be shown on free-to-air television.

We all know that the members of our magnificent Scotland team are huge role models for our children and young people, and they will no doubt inspire our next generation of football players. Along with that, however, come responsibilities, one of which is the responsibility to stop exploiting children on behalf of the alcohol industry. Big alcohol brands, familiar and not so familiar, will be queuing at the door of Scotland’s football authorities to sponsor the team and to get their brands in front of the customers of today and tomorrow. That type of marketing is designed to boost sales by attracting new consumers and targeting heavy drinkers, but it also results in young people starting to consume alcohol at an earlier age and increases the chances of binge drinking. I expect and encourage the football authorities to take their responsibilities seriously and reject alcohol sponsorship in favour of industries that do less harm in our country.

I thank Keith Brown for lodging the motion. We all know the passion that football inspires, and, like Keith Brown, I am a long-suffering Hibs fan. Let us enjoy the build-up to the world cup. As they say: no Scotland, no party.

To ask the First Minister whether he will provide an update on the Scottish Government’s latest engagement with the United Kingdom Government regarding any impact on poverty levels in Scotland of the freeze to local housing allowance. (S6F-04511)

The chancellor spoke about tackling child poverty, yet she failed to restore local housing allowance rates. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation estimated that 20,000 private renters, including 10,000 children, will be pushed into poverty in 2025-26 as a direct result of the policy.

Meanwhile, the Resolution Foundation predicts that the affordability gap, which is currently bigger than when the Conservative Government increased the local housing allowance in 2020, will rise to 25 per cent by 2029-30, unless the UK Government intervenes. That amounts to £180 a month for hard-pressed families.

While Labour continues to make lives harder for the most vulnerable, can the First Minister tell us more about the steps that the Scottish Government is taking across housing to further its ambition of eradicating child poverty?

On that point, I have a meeting coming up with Sands, too, and I have also had the pleasure of engaging with the Held In Our Hearts charity, which works with families who have lost young children, had late miscarriages and so on. As Brian Whittle mentioned, that is a really important issue. The charity works with four or five local authorities, but there is an issue in trying to extend that across the whole of Scotland.

The likes of Held In Our Hearts and Sands play an incredible role. I have family members who went through such an experience, so I am glad that Brian Whittle raised that important issue. I am happy to work with him on any such issues that he raises in the future.

I am glad to speak in this debate. Normally, these debates are consensual, and I am a bit concerned about how this one has been politicised by Tory speakers—I really am.

There is absolutely no doubt that toxic masculinity is on the increase. We all see it and we all know that it is damaging our communities, schools, workplaces and everyday life.

More than four years ago, during the 16 days of activism, we all stood here in a new session of Parliament and pledged to do more. In the time that we have left in this session, we all need to do so. This time next year, Parliament will again debate this subject and it must also pledge to do more.

This year, the focus is on online safety, and I will touch on that later. A few speakers have talked about the number of incidents of domestic abuse in 2023-24, which was 63,867. That is a scary figure. A clear majority of victims are female, and the vast majority of perpetrators are male.

Since 2018-19, Police Scotland has recorded 60,000 incidents of domestic abuse every year. That is 1,150 per week, 164 a day and seven every hour. In the time that we have been speaking in this debate, 20 women will have suffered domestic abuse. That is not acceptable.

We all know that domestic abuse is largely a hidden crime that goes unreported to the police. Scottish Women’s Aid believes the figures to be much higher, as not all incidents are reported to the police, which the report acknowledges.