Seòmar agus comataidhean

I appreciate that expanding the apprenticeship model and earn-as-you-learn routes for healthcare workers across professions creates opportunities for people who might not have had the chance to attend university. It also offers the chance to grow skills in local areas. In the past, when I have asked about the apprenticeship model for allied health professions, the Government has pointed to the development of the next generation higher national certificate for AHP subjects, which could offer people a recognised pay-as-you-earn route into those professions. Has progress been made on that since the start of the year? When might we see those routes across the allied health professions?

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the action that it is taking to develop apprenticeship models for healthcare workers. (S6O-05252)

I extend my gratitude to all health and social care staff, who provide an extraordinary level of care and service to so many across Scotland.

Having listened to others’ contributions so far, it is clear to me that the value of social care and its workforce cannot be overstated. Social care provides invaluable and tailored support to thousands across the country; it improves quality of life and allows as many as possible to lead an independent life. However, we know that many are missing out.

Social care forms an integral part of our health system. However, as in many other areas of healthcare, a crisis has been growing in social care for quite some time. It seems as though, for 18 years, that has been blanked from the minds of the Scottish Government. With increasing demand, funding constraints and workforce pressure, the question of how we value and invest in social care has never been more important, but the question of how the Scottish Government values and invests in social care needs to be answered.

A failure to prioritise has fuelled challenges and, despite repeated warnings to the Government, health and social care partnerships now face serious budget shortfalls. That has led to local communities’ care packages being cut—“viciously cut”, as one carer described it—which is forcing people to wait months for necessary support. Integration joint boards’ finances are at risk of collapse, and the continued trajectory of overspend, depletion of resources and reliance on one-off, rather than recurring, savings has, according to Audit Scotland, left a £457 million funding gap.

The lack of funding for health and social care partnerships is not a new phenomenon—it has been a problem for some time. Year after year, the Scottish Government chooses to ignore it. The Government might cite the rising demand in the sector or in other areas as evidence that care is becoming more complex, but that has been exacerbated by a lack of funding in the first instance—the funding has just not kept up with demand.

Underfunding is not an isolated issue; it is a systemic problem that is seen right across Scotland. In my South Scotland region, South Ayrshire IJB faced an end-of-year overspend of more than £2 million, which has left the IJB with concerningly low reserves. That significantly limits its ability to respond to unexpected budget pressures. Levels of delayed discharge in South Ayrshire already sit well above targets. That is a symptom of overspend and a reduction in the funding that is available. There is a need to look at the root causes of that.

Of course.

Thank you. The reality is that we might talk about these initiatives, but when we talk to our constituents, we find that it is very difficult for the funding to follow. The crisis is such that, even though there are small pockets that we can talk about positively, they are not replicating themselves across Scotland, so many of our constituents sit waiting for care.

In closing, I make it clear that the long-standing underfunding of social care in Scotland is not a new problem. It is a direct result of mismanagement and, I think, a lack of leadership by the Scottish Government. Thousands are waiting for social care assessments and support; delayed discharges remain stubbornly high; and, as we have heard, the number of care homes has plummeted.

In the summer, I did a piece for the Scottish Parliament on whether we value social care in Scotland. This will be my last word—that the conclusion from not just me but the sector and carers is that we do not value it in Scotland. It is time that this Government valued social care, and the money should come forward for it.

I, too, thank Elena Whitham for bringing this important debate to the chamber. As the motion says, and as other members have noted in their contributions, bereavement is not always an easy subject to discuss, but all of us in the Parliament, and our constituents, will experience some form of bereavement at various times in our life.

Bereavement is a complex and very personal experience. Everyone is different and there is no single way to grieve. We will all know personally, having had our own experiences or from seeing family and friends grieving, that everyone experiences it in their very own way and that people have their own beliefs, rituals and plans to help them to deal with death. However, we also know that people struggle. People experience things that they never imagined they would, and life is not always kind when those moments strike us. Sometimes we are prepared, and sometimes we are utterly unprepared. It is for those reasons, and for many other reasons that members have mentioned, that we need good bereavement support to guide people through what is often a very difficult time.

From my research for the debate, it is clear that people need both practical advice, as other members have mentioned, and on-going emotional support. Registering a death, following the rules for burial and dealing with costs can be both practically very difficult and emotionally draining. The time that follows, grieving in the longer term, is complex for many people. As other members have said, there is no timeframe—people have to deal with bereavement and grief in their own way and in their own time.

We know from the UK Commission on Bereavement’s report, “Bereavement is everyone’s business”, which the motion mentions, that, although we might imagine that people have support networks, the data tells us that the situation is quite different. According to the report, 28 per cent of the adults who responded to the consultation said that they received no support from family and almost 46 per cent said that they did not get support from friends following bereavement. In addition, 61 per cent of the adults who responded said that they had difficulty with at least one practical or administrative task following bereavement. That makes us think: these things will happen, and people need support in place. Finally, more than 40 per cent of the adults who responded said that they had wanted formal bereavement support but did not know how to go about receiving that support.

People find the subject of death so difficult. My own story is that I remember once dropping off my kids at school and going over to another mum to say how sorry I was about the death of her father. In that moment, I could see that she was very upset, and the reason was that people were avoiding her, which was so difficult for her to deal with, on top of all the grief. She really wanted people to recognise her bereavement and to say something about the loss of her father, but clearly so many people were finding it difficult, and their reaction was to walk away and say nothing.

Many of my thoughts in this debate are about how we support people to be a support to their family, friends and colleagues when they are experiencing bereavement and grief. We will all experience the death of a loved one, and it is incumbent on us all to try to support people. I am pleased to see in the update to the report that there has been some positive work across the four nations. That includes looking at how we support people in employment with bereavement policies and how we do work in schools. The Scottish Government has done some work on a palliative care strategy, including bereavement support. There are also the organisations that other members have mentioned. People tell us how important those organisations are and, as a Parliament, we must make a commitment to them.

All the measures that have been mentioned are very welcome, but, as always, more needs to be done. That is why the debate is so important. It is important that we talk about bereavement in order to understand its impact and the profound changes that bereaved people can face in dealing with the practical and emotional consequences. I welcome the debate, and I thank all members in the chamber for contributing to it.

I thank my colleague, Pam Duncan-Glancy, for bringing this important debate to the chamber. I am delighted that I will be joining the Parliament’s 2026 disability summit, which is mentioned in the motion; I am looking forward to working with the young people who will be co-chairing the sessions.

I will, if I may, start by talking a little bit about my colleague, Pam Duncan-Glancy, who is an inspiration not only to me, but, I know, to many others in the chamber. My colleague, who is sitting beside me, has worked tirelessly throughout her career on this cause, and I know that she will continue to fight for the rights and wellbeing of disabled people.

If there is one thing that I have learned about Pam Duncan-Glancy, it is that she has plenty of fight. She and others, such as Karen Adam’s father, have faced challenges and barriers that I cannot even imagine. She has shared those experiences with us in the chamber, and across the community, to ensure that the voices of many disabled people can be heard. She is generous with her time on these issues and shows great determination to change the trajectory for every disabled person that she can.

Over my five years in Parliament, I have realised that Pam Duncan-Glancy is a great ally and wonderful friend. She is also very funny and—I probably should not say this, Deputy Presiding Officer—we have had very many laughs and funny moments just sitting here in the chamber beside each other.

However, I want to make the point that Pam Duncan-Glancy is a very able parliamentarian. If we can bring more people with her experiences and background to Parliament, to professional jobs and to a whole variety of workplaces, we will have a far healthier and happier economy and society, and much better public service provision. I say that not just to talk up my friend, but to say to society that if we can make changes, we will all benefit. Disabled people should be our friends, neighbours and work colleagues. That would benefit us all.

Despite knowing how valuable disabled people are to our society, however, we know that the true picture—as we heard from Alexander Stewart—is that they face restrictions and their opportunities are often taken away. The employment rate for disabled people has been consistently lower than the rate for non-disabled people. People who are recorded as having additional support needs are less likely to achieve the qualifications that they should, and when they leave school, they are less likely to have a positive destination. We know that poverty rates remain much higher among households where someone has a disability. That is unacceptable, and we must continue to fight it.

The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic demonstrated that if someone has a disability, the inequalities that they face are more likely to be exacerbated. People with disabilities have the right to work and to be part of our society, and it is incumbent on Government to ensure that the world of work is a welcoming and suitably adjusted environment. The Equality Act 2010 offers disabled people a lot of protection from workplace discrimination, but in order to ensure that that protection is realised, the Government must take the issue seriously. I am sure that we will hear the Minister for Equalities, in her closing remarks, speak about how we must continue to push to ensure that the 2010 act is complied with.

We must allocate resources and ensure that education and workplace projects are properly funded. We need to see much better representation of disabled people across society: in our media, our public services and our representative bodies. I hope that, as a result, other people will have the great privilege of meeting great work colleagues and friends, just like we in Parliament have in Pam Duncan-Glancy.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to close this debate for Labour. I thank the Government for bringing the motion to the chamber—it is very welcome at this time—and I thank members for speaking on such an important issue.

Although the theme of this year’s 16 days of activism asks us to unite to end digital violence against all women and girls, recent statistics remind us that violence against women and girls remains far too common right across society—many members mentioned that this evening. Whether through domestic violence, sexual harassment or rampant misogyny, women continue to be the target of far too many men’s terrible behaviour and aggression.

As we have heard in the debate, that is in many ways magnified in the digital world. The cabinet secretary pointed out that boys’ viewing of warped behaviour online can have an effect on them for life. Katy Clark as well as others mentioned that the digital world is being taken over by the far right, which is pushing messages to our young men. We have a responsibility to do all that we can to combat that.

I have to clearly say that digital abuse, including trolling, stalking and other forms of technologically facilitated violence against women and girls, really worries me. If I am honest, I do not think that we fully understand all the aspects of it.

The debate has raised challenges that we face. We have heard that digital violence changes so rapidly that it always seems to be one step ahead of legislators. However, if we cannot understand how serious that issue is today and address the complexities of regulation of our digital world and, at the same time, address the root cause of violence against women, we need to think about what we are doing in this place.

We have heard about how difficult it is to legislate in this area and about the importance of working across all spheres of government, and with companies, communities and individuals. The message of today’s debate is that we must do so. We know that the work is challenging, but we must commit to join together—to unite, as the motion says—because this opportunity to change the trajectory is too important to miss.

I am pleased to hear that the Scottish Government is working with the UK Government on the Online Safety Act 2023, and I hope that it will continue to do that. If the Governments in Scotland, the UK and Europe work together, it will be a big step forward, because that is the only way that we will be able to tackle the issue.

A big step towards changing the trajectory will be exposing the parts of our society that are apologists for the normalisation of that violence, many of which are key elements of the establishment. Many people in the digital world seem to think that gender-based violence is normal, but we know that it is not inherent. The truth is that it is learned and nurtured through stereotypes, misogyny, bias and ingrained inequalities.

I thank Stuart McMillan for his contribution, in which he talked about his daughters and about the fact that we also need to talk to our sons, our brothers, our husbands and other men. Paul McLennan has spoken on that issue before, and I know that he is very passionate about it. Rhoda Grant and Ash Regan mentioned work that has been done on online pimping. Pimping websites, which are easy to find, exploit vulnerable women, and legislation has just not kept up with the sexual exploitation of women. The wording in those members’ contributions told us that women are “trafficked” and are seen as “products”. We need to ask the Government to bring Parliament together to discuss what we can do about that.

I also want to raise the issue of porn and its normalisation in the lives of young men. Of course, porn is accessed both offline and online, but research and work with young men shows that extreme forms of porn tend to be accessed in the digital world. During my five years in Parliament, I have heard from women who research that area. The issue is often not tackled, perhaps because it is uncomfortable to do so and there is the feeling that we cannot change it, but we must endeavour to do just that. Porn is not acceptable and it is not normal, and we should be saying that to young men. They need to be educated, and online porn has to be tackled. I have heard from young women who say that it can be used to degrade them and make them feel violated. As Michelle Thomson clearly pinpointed, exposure to such things at an early age distorts some of our sexual relationships throughout our lives.

Members mentioned the manipulation of porn and online content. It is true to say that women bear the brunt of online manipulation in the digital world, and society has a responsibility to challenge the industry and those behaviours. As parliamentarians, we must provide adequate resources to tackle that injustice.

I want to mention the equally safe model, which is of course welcome, but it is fair to ask the cabinet secretary how we might be able to develop it further and make it work. Many members mentioned that it is not currently working and that not all schools have picked up on it. Some cross-parliamentary and cross-portfolio work on that would be really welcome.

There is much to be done, but I hope that, by coming together today in the Parliament, we can unite and change the trajectory of violence against women in Scotland and across the world.

That is helpful—thank you.

I have one more question, which is about the focus on physical disability and whether mental and behavioural disorders are picked up in the way that they should be. Do you have any feedback on that?

I will explore some of the points that you made about inconsistency. The report describes stakeholder views that ADP decisions can appear inconsistent. A couple of constituents have raised issues with timescales for redeterminations, appeals at the First-tier Tribunal and challenges around that. People I have been speaking to have wondered about inconsistent decision making. Did you get much of that in producing the report?