Seòmar agus comataidhean

I want to touch on rurality in Scotland, which you have both mentioned, but I will see whether there is anything else to explore. The Scottish Government’s impact assessment showed that rural Scotland accounts for about 17 per cent of the population, with 6 per cent in a very remote situation. Those areas have a different demographic; there is talk of a changing pattern, with people retiring to rural areas, so access to services is very different. Are you satisfied that the plan gives enough consideration to that? Is there anything else that we should be doing to address health inequality in more rural and island areas?

That is helpful—thank you.

I, too, thank Fulton MacGregor for bringing the debate to the chamber, and I welcome the guests in the public gallery. I also thank the people who came to the Parliament—I think that it was last week or the week before—to update us on this important issue.

As other members have said, PKU is a rare but treatable inherited disorder that prevents the normal breakdown of the amino acid phenylalanine, which is a natural component of protein. That results in build-up in the blood and the brain. As other members have said, the condition is managed through a specialist diet that avoids foods that are very high in protein, such as meat and dairy. As Fulton MacGregor indicated, however, that is immensely complex.

Delays in treatment can cause long-term health problems, which is why early diagnosis is crucial. However, the complexity of the PKU diet—as we have heard—means that people have a really restricted intake of food and quite a different life when it comes to the things that we all take for granted. It is the human element in all this that we are discussing today: what impact does that have on people’s lives?

Members will know that, many years ago, I worked as a dietician in the NHS. I have heard other members talk about the role of dieticians, and people who have contacted me have highlighted that important role. During my time as a dietician, I supported a small number of people with PKU and their families. At that time, not only was the dietary regime very restrictive—I remember that—but the amino acid substitute was very difficult to take. That experience really gave me a feeling for how one’s family life can be changed by just one event.

Having a family member with PKU means that people think about and look at food in a very different way. Their daily timetable changes, and the things that they enjoy change. That is why families are so concerned to ensure that modern treatments are available for their loved ones to use.

I will talk about the experiences of a mum who reached out to me ahead of the debate. She has two sons who were diagnosed with PKU as newborns and began receiving sapropterin after it was approved in 2022. I will check the Official Report to ensure that the correct drug is there, spelled correctly, because—as we know—a lot of the medications have similar-sounding names.

Following successful treatment, their daily protein tolerance increased from 10g to 28g, before increasing to 38g and 39g respectively. Their mum had to talk to the medics about increasing that further. I will try to give members some perspective on what grams of protein actually mean. When the boys were on 38g and 39g of protein, they could eat only some vegan diets, and dairy-free and gluten-free products, and they still took about 150 tablets a day.

Now, they have managed to increase their tolerance, by using the drug, to 68g and 72g of protein respectively. That has given them real freedom, and they are now on only 36 tablets a day. It is truly remarkable to hear about treatments that make such a difference and about how much people’s lives have changed since the drug was assessed and approved.

However, I make the point that the journey to that stage was by no means easy. Their mum had to fight hard for treatment—she knew that it was readily available in other parts of the UK and in Europe. Her experience was that the guidelines and best practice were not easy to navigate or consistent for people and families.

Scottish patients appear to be getting treated differently, and mums who have had the kind of positive experience that I just described want other families to get that benefit. That experience is probably not unique, and it is an important example of why we have to hear from the minister whether she can look into the matter and ensure that patients in Scotland receive more equitable treatment.

Some of my questions have already been answered, but I want to get some things on the record for clarity. Much of the focus of the evidence session has been on restoring LHA rates to the 30th percentile of rents. Are there any other calculations that we could use? In fact, are there completely different methods that we could use to help low-income renters to secure a tenancy? We have talked about the strategy for tackling homelessness, particularly by getting people into the private rented sector. It is difficult to support people who might want to downsize, so we can provide mitigations in that regard. There is also the issue of housing supply. Are there other things that we should add to the list?

I want to link my last question, which you have probably answered, to one that I asked the previous witnesses. For the record, much of the previous evidence that we heard focused on restoring the LHA rates to the 30th percentile of rents. Do the witnesses have anything that they want to add about that calculation? Could we do it differently, or are there completely different methods that we could look at to ensure that we get some meaningful movement for lower-income people in particular in their tenancies?

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. That is helpful.

I thank Claire Baker for bringing this important debate to the chamber, and I thank all those who have contributed so far. I associate myself with the remarks that everybody has made about the importance of cross-party working, particularly in this area, and of the quality of the research in this area. That research might be limited, but its quality is so important.

Today’s motion asks the Parliament to recognise and consider the benefits of creating a stand-alone offence for non-fatal strangulation, which, in my view, could see significant improvements to public awareness, data collection, and victim safety and support.

Non-fatal strangulation is a severe form of domestic abuse that is predominantly carried out by men against women. As we have heard, it can have serious and long-term side effects, including brain damage, organ failure and mental health issues. It has potentially life-threatening consequences and can cause extreme trauma for victims.

In her speech, Tess White showed the shocking reality and why we have to highlight it. As the motion highlights, non-fatal strangulation often leaves no visible injuries, but it is a strong predictor of future lethal violence and is becoming increasingly more common, particularly, as we have heard from other contributors, among younger people, who might not fully understand the consequences.

Although non-fatal strangulation is prosecuted as a criminal offence in Scotland under the common law of assault, as we have heard, that common-law route does not always work and can fall short of fully capturing the offence. I believe that exploring how and where improvements can be made might significantly improve outcomes for victims. If we cannot fully capture the offence, we cannot get improvements.

I want to recognise the bold and world-leading action that the Parliament is taking to tackle violence against women and girls. That has been done, because we work on a cross-party basis and listen to each other. I think that that should be put on the record.

As non-fatal strangulation is currently recorded under a range of offences, there is an issue with the recording of—and, indeed, the lack of—data. That is an important element; I do not need to explain just how important data is. It is important not only because it allows us to understand the scale of the problem and to increase awareness, as I have said. Capturing and recording that data is important in a medical sense; it is important for research, which will allow us to change the impacts; and it is important at an individual level, too, at the point at which a victim presents at a hospital. Therefore, it is very important that we get the data right, because doing so will help us increase public awareness of the dangers.

A strong case can be made that a stand-alone law would improve education and awareness of the effects of strangulation and could help improve the long-term safety and wellbeing of the victims. Underreporting is such an issue, and a stand-alone law might help if people really understood what we were trying to record.

I recognise the arguments that Claire Baker highlighted—I, too, was at that round table—from people who have cautioned against introducing a stand-alone offence, given the potential unintended consequences. We could look for a quicker alternative approach, but it might not be as effective and might fall short in addressing the core problems.

Tackling violence against women and girls must and should always be a priority for the Parliament. In my view, it is absolutely worth exploring the creation of a stand-alone offence, as it could send a message. It is important for Scotland that we see this as our absolute priority.

I thank Claire Baker and other members for their contributions.

Earlier this week, reports revealed that the A and E department at Crosshouse hospital in NHS Ayrshire and Arran exceeded capacity by 50 per cent this December. Staff had no choice but to care for and treat patients in corridors. To be clear, this is not just a winter issue—Crosshouse A and E exceeded capacity during seven months of last year. What progress has been made in capturing data on corridor care at both a national and local level, so that we might finally understand the true scale of that risk to staff and patients?

You used an example that I pulled out, too, about the difference in the way in which England is approaching free childcare. Are you keen to make sure that lessons are learned about how we might do some of the things that are positive in the UK strategy?