Seòmar agus comataidhean

The head of Scotland for Save the Children has welcomed the Scottish National Party Government’s budget plans for a top-up to the Scottish child payment for families with a baby under one. This week, she said:

“This crucial extra support can’t come soon enough for families. We hope it receives cross-party support in Parliament.”

Will the First Minister join me in calling on Opposition members to listen to Save the Children and back the SNP Scottish budget so that we can deliver such landmark policies to continue our work to eradicate child poverty?

The head of Scotland for Save the Children has welcomed the Scottish National Party Government’s budget plans for a top-up to the Scottish child payment for families with a baby under one. This week, she said:

“This crucial extra support can’t come soon enough for families. We hope it receives cross-party support in Parliament.”

Will the First Minister join me in calling on Opposition members to listen to Save the Children and back the SNP Scottish budget so that we can deliver such landmark policies to continue our work to eradicate child poverty?

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it is having with the United Kingdom Government to ensure that the consultation on combinable crops will deliver for Scotland’s arable farmers. (S6O-05393)

East Lothian produces excellent grain, but, as the minister said, the sector has faced issues in relation to one of the hardest harvests in years. After a dry spring and summer, growers—especially malting barley producers—face huge pressures. Growers are being left to carry the can for decisions that are made beyond their control, whether in relation to vague contract wording, inconsistent testing standards or an unwillingness to share risk.

What can the Scottish Government do to reinforce the need for joined-up thinking and shared responsibility at every level of the supply chain?

All sexual abuse and exploitation of children is horrific, and it is important that we treat the issue sensitively when we discuss it.

Can the cabinet secretary set out more detail of what the national review will involve? What more can she say about the evidence and information that it will collate and what will happen when it is received?

As the cabinet secretary knows, housing colleagues in the Scottish Government are engaging with East Lothian Council and the United Kingdom Government on the Blindwells business case, which she referred to, which would see a potential new town for East Lothian. What actions can Transport Scotland and the cabinet secretary take to ensure that transport solutions are progressed in tandem with housing proposals?

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had regarding transport solutions to support the current and future development of Blindwells, East Lothian. (S6O-05383)

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate today. I will take a step back and look at the background to the Promise. Between 2017 and 2020, Scotland’s independent care review heard of the experiences of more than 5,500 people, including care-experienced infants, children and young people and adults, and members of the paid and unpaid workforce of Scotland’s care system. I express my thanks to them for their contribution. Today, we are speaking for them.

Their vision was set out in the independent care review’s conclusions. In 2020, the Scottish Parliament agreed to keep those conclusions in full. When it did so, it made the Promise, and we have to keep it. The bill represents a significant step forward, but future Parliaments will always have to continue the work, regardless of the views on the bill today.

What was the independent care review? It was a consultation on how our care system needed to change. It came from a place of activism and voice, following the work of a movement of care-experienced people across Scotland who were determined to improve the life chances of people with experience of care. The key message was about improving the life chances of people with experience of care.

In 2016, ahead of the Scottish Parliament election, the movement secured a cross-party commitment to an independent care review. Following that, the then First Minister pledged her support and announced an independent root-and-branch review of care. That review commenced in 2017 and concluded in 2020. During that time, it listened to what thousands of children, adults and families told it about their experiences of the care system. During my 15 years as a councillor, such issues were raised by families, parents and carers on many occasions. We need to focus on what they told us then and take things forward from where we are now.

In brief, the Promise is Scotland’s ambition that every child and young person should grow up safe, loved and respected. The question is how we maximise that. One of the key points that has been made today is about family and group decision making, and I am glad that the minister touched on that and will be meeting Children First to take forward that work.

I will focus on some of the five foundations on which the Promise is built and the change that is needed. In relation to voice, children and young people must be listened to and involved in decision making about their care. I will touch on advocacy, which is a key issue, later.

The bill is about children and care, but there is also a family issue. Many children feel safe and loved with their families, so they should stay with them if they possibly can. When we spoke to children at the event that was held with Who Cares? Scotland, that was one of the issues raised. When it is not possible for children and young people to remain with their family, they must stay with their siblings if that is possible.

An issue that has not been raised so far today relates to the workforce. The committee heard evidence that members of the workforce must be supported to develop trusting and compassionate relationships with those they support, and they must be aware of the importance of listening during decision making. Children, families and the workforce must be supported by a system that is there when it is needed. There should be the scaffolding of help, support and accountability.

As a member of the committee, I will pick up on a few of the key issues that have been touched on. In relation to engagement prior to the bill’s introduction, the committee’s report mentioned that key stakeholders felt that they had not been fully engaged in the bill’s development. I know that the minister has had extensive discussions and that she continues to do so. I heard that from stakeholders and from discussions with the minister.

Aftercare is incredibly important. Extending aftercare provisions to those who leave care prior to their 16th birthday fulfils a key ask of the Promise. In our discussions about aftercare, we have heard that the issues do not stop at someone’s 16th birthday; it is a whole-life experience. That really important issue was raised by the kids we spoke to. Another of the key issues that has been raised is whether an assessment is required before support for someone in that position can be considered. As a few committee members have said, we need to be clear on eligibility. The current duty on local authorities to provide aftercare is closely linked to throughcare, and we must ensure that such support is provided in all parts of Scotland, not just in selected local authorities.

The committee and the previous First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, have talked about independent advocacy. For me, that was a key issue when we spoke to the children at the Who Cares? Scotland event. Children must have a voice that will stand up for them. John Mason raised the point about the flexibility of the system. Some say that it is about the person, not just about independent advocacy. That is really important.

Those are a few of the key points.

I thank the organisations that have sent briefings for today’s debate, and I will mention a few of them. In its nuanced briefing, Children’s Hospices Across Scotland talked about the need for children and young people with life-shortening conditions to get the support that they need, along with their families, to transition into adult services. That is a small but important point to raise. The NSPCC’s point about the rights of babies, which has been mentioned, is also important. The minister and I have had discussions about that, and I think that she will be meeting the NSPCC on that particular point.

The most enlightening experience for me was the event that was organised by Who Cares? Scotland, at which we heard from about 40 children of different ages and backgrounds from across Scotland. We had many committee evidence sessions, but the evidence that we heard from the 40 children really stood out. One child stated that it was a great opportunity for all care-experienced people to help shape policy and government and improve the lives of those in care. They are the people who have had to live with it, and we owe it to them to pass the bill at stage 1 and continue engagement.

Despite a challenging UK policy environment, Scotland continues to do all that it can to preserve skills, protect jobs and deliver a truly just transition. Does the cabinet secretary agree that, in order for that to happen, the UK Government must start delivering north of the border? Can she provide an update on the Scottish Government’s work to secure a future for the site?

I am pleased to speak in support of the motion, and I thank Fulton MacGregor for lodging it. It is about recognising PKU, which is a rare, lifelong metabolic condition that places a significant, and often invisible, burden on those who live with it and on their families.

It is not something that can be managed occasionally or partially—it requires constant attention, from infancy throughout life. Without strict dietary management, the consequences can be severe and irreversible—in particular, they can include neurological damage that affects learning, cognition and mental health. That reality shapes every single day—every meal and every social interaction—for people living with PKU.

For those families, food is not simply food: it means calculation and vigilance, and planning ahead in ways that most of us never have to consider. Everyday foods that many of us take for granted are simply not options. That affects school meals, work, social occasions and travel, and it places a sustained mental and emotional load on individuals and carers alike.

I recently met with members of the board of the National Society for PKU and listened directly to people with lived experience of PKU. What came through clearly was not only the clinical reality of the condition, but the importance of consistency, predictability and clear communication in the support that people receive.

The recent drop-in event that was organised by Fulton MacGregor and held in the Parliament provided a valuable opportunity to hear those experiences directly and to understand current challenges in navigating care pathways.

The motion rightly highlights two developments that offer real potential to improve quality of life. First, there are on-going UK trials of a home blood phenylalanine—please excuse my pronunciation—monitoring device. As stakeholders have highlighted, the ability to monitor levels accurately at home could significantly reduce stress, improve control and support better day-to-day management. Secondly, there is an emerging treatment: sepiapterin. We heard evidence of how, for some people, that treatment could increase dietary tolerance and ease the relentless burden of restriction that defines daily life with PKU.

However, families and clinicians have been clear that innovation must be matched by clarity and consistency in how guidance is implemented in practice. People with PKU report inconsistency in how pathways are applied and how quickly individuals can access support. They want confidence that the national guidance translates into predictable, equitable care, wherever they live in Scotland.

I recognise that PKU care sits within the nationally commissioned inherited metabolic disorder services, with established clinical governance and decision-making structures. The ask from families is not to bypass those systems, but to ensure that they work consistently and transparently for patients.

If we are serious about improving long-term outcomes, strengthening services must mean more than recognising new developments. It must mean ensuring clear pathways, timely communication and the capacity within services to respond as evidence and treatments evolve. That matters for families in constituencies such as East Lothian, who should be able to rely on a system that supports them over the long term, rather than one that feels uncertain or fragmented.

People who are living with PKU already shoulder a heavy responsibility every single day. Our role is to ensure that public services support them effectively, consistently and with compassion. I fully recognise the nationally commissioned nature of inherited metabolic disorder services and the clinical governance arrangements that are in place, as I have said—however, the question that families ask is whether that national framework delivers consistently.

Respecting established appraisal and governance routes should go hand in hand with readiness in pathways, service capacity and communication. The debate is not about bypassing clinical decision making, but about ensuring transparency, consistency and confidence for families who are navigating a lifelong condition. If the system is intended to be national and standardised, it should be possible to demonstrate that lived experience reflects that ambition. I am pleased to support the motion.