Seòmar agus comataidhean

Given the complexities of the young people and the amount of support that would be required to maintain family contact, does it seem realistic that that could be maintained?

Why is there little detail in the minister’s statement on how we can retain existing staff? Staff turnover is as great a problem as lack of recruitment. Last week, the Royal College of Psychiatrists produced a report that states that 42 per cent of existing consultants are over 50 and that half of them are considering early retirement. Can the minister give details on what strategy is in place to retain those hard-working staff?

The dream of a nuclear-free world is one that sustains those who have been committed to peace and justice for decades, yet we still seem very far away from that ideal. To Mr Kerr, I say that reality will change only if we change it, and we must play our part in doing so. Our job is to build peace, not war. I am happy to make any small contribution that I can as part of that effort, and I am sure that many in the chamber are, too.

I do not believe that the world is a safer place with nuclear weapons, so we disagree on that point.

I am pleased to close the debate for Labour. It is right that we have taken the time to debate such topics, and we have had some interesting discussion. However, as has been mentioned, it would be helpful to focus more on policy and debate that in the chamber. This is an important area of cross-portfolio working, so we should have such discussions in the chamber.

When Labour members talk about poverty, we often talk about Labour’s proud record of delivering for the early years. As my colleague Pam Duncan-Glancy said, the Labour Party in government lifted millions out of poverty, including many children, through the delivery of the innovative and life-changing policies of sure start and the national minimum wage.

As a lifelong member of the Labour Party, I remember that, at that time, I was always pleased but I was never satisfied. I always wanted more for those who were living in poverty, and we must all be driven by that ambition.

Labour members recognise that policies such as the Scottish child payment, which I pick out, the whole family wellbeing fund, which my colleague Pam Duncan-Glancy mentioned, and the expansion of childcare hours, which Willie Rennie mentioned, have had successes. We want to support that, but it is our role to call out the Government to address issues and make enhancements when it can go further. I welcomed the points that Ruth Maguire and Kaukab Stewart made about challenging their front benchers, because that is how we will change outcomes for young people in our society.

We all recognise the need, which we have heard about today, for an early childhood development transformational change programme. The path to its success must involve driving our ambitions further and further. We know that there are barriers in front of infants and their families at the moment. We know, too, that, for early childhood development to work and to have the impact that it can have, other services have to operate at a high level. We hear from professionals, voluntary groups and families that the reality on the ground is not as the minister described it in her opening remarks.

Jamie Greene mentioned the former Children and Young People’s Commissioner’s comments on the Government’s actions. We must acknowledge those, because doing so is the first step to being able to move matters forward.

Early-stage educational provision must be as accessible in rural and urban areas and deprived communities as it is in our affluent areas, to make early development matter and allow skills to continue to develop throughout a young person’s life. We have heard that said so many times in the chamber in the debate, and we all need to work to that ambition.

I will pick up on Evelyn Tweed’s contribution. Councils need to be adequately funded to provide local facilities and hubs that will allow development to flourish and create potential. We must consider how we move towards local government funding. The idea is strong and has the support of members, but the infrastructure is sorely lacking due to the decisions that the Government is currently making. It feels as though there is a lack of ambition, or perhaps there is just an acceptance that we can go on doing what we have done because we have done it a bit better or done a certain bit well. We need to do more.

I reiterate that Scottish Labour recognises the value of early childhood development, which is absolutely crucial. As my colleague Martin Whitfield said, it is part of a jigsaw.

I believe that the scale of health inequality in Scotland will continue to restrict childhood development until we see radical change. Just this week, a report from National Records of Scotland highlighted that death rates are almost twice as high in the most deprived areas of Scotland as they are in the least deprived. Research published by the Health Foundation earlier this year found that infant mortality has increased in our most deprived areas since 2014. We know that, in 2021-22, there was an increase in the proportion of children with developmental concerns at all three review points. We have a lot of work to do, and we need to acknowledge that.

The motion rightly highlights the importance of the early years. As many members have reiterated, the motion states that they last

“from pre-pregnancy to age three, when experiences and the environment shape the foundations for life.”

I fully agree. Given that we have a dire Tory Government at Westminster and that there has been a lack of urgency and boldness from the SNP Scottish Government, both of our Governments have fallen short of the mark for children.

I will conclude by referring to the contribution of Rona Mackay. As she said, it has become clearer by the day that Scotland is in desperate need of a fresh start and a move away from two failing Governments. A change of Government at Westminster would truly make a difference to the delivery of child development measures in Scotland. I urge members to think about what we, in this Parliament, can do about that.

Aberlour has called for the cancellation of school meals debt. Through its research, it has identified that

“income thresholds for free school meal eligibility have barely risen in the last twenty years.”

Delays to the extension of free school meals mean that some parents and families are now feeling the impact of the Government’s inaction. Will the First Minister back calls for the cancellation of school meals debt? Will he consider an immediate uprating of the income thresholds to give working families some much-needed relief and further reduce the likelihood of hunger in schools?

This is a members’ business debate, and I am entitled to put forward my view on the idea that we should have a nuclear weapons-free world.

During a time when horrendous war and inhumanity are on our screens day after day, it has really felt appropriate that we strive to work on the issue that we are discussing today. I thank Bill Kidd for his continuing work on this vital issue, and I am clear in my support for the aims that are addressed and recognised in the motion. We need more activity in the Parliament that is dedicated to peace and more parliamentarians speaking boldly in favour of that.

The motion notes that 60 per cent of the world’s countries are now nuclear weapons-free zones, which is promising. Although the pace is gradual, we are slowly decreasing the threat of nuclear weapons globally. However, it remains the case that a small concentration of countries continue to put the entire globe at risk, and I am ashamed to say that our own is included in that number.

Striving to make Europe a nuclear weapons-free zone is a noble and worthwhile pursuit that this Parliament can contribute to constructively with partners across the continent, many of whom will have a clear interest in Scotland, due to its significance as one of the few areas in Europe to house nuclear weapons. Adding our voice to that orchestra has a definite impact, and it is wise of us to do so. People want to hear from Scotland on this issue, so let us speak to the world about it. Speaking to the world on this issue is something that we perhaps do not do often enough.

Although there are differences of opinion on this issue across the chamber, and even within parties, Scotland and the UK more widely have played an important role in the anti-nuclear weapons movement for decades by being proactive and constructive and having our communities speak out about the issue. There is no reason for us to slow that down.

I understand that there is no quick fix to the mistakes of the past that brought these horrible weapons into reality, but I am confident that, in time, the idea that we once had nuclear warheads capable of mass death and destruction on our doorstep will seem completely ridiculous. That might not be in my lifetime, but I hope that it is in my children’s lifetime. Here today, in this building, we can come together and make a difference. We can have a nuclear weapons-free Europe. I do not want generations to suffer because of the mistakes that we made and because we did not speak out. That is a key responsibility for all elected representatives. Let us work together in the knowledge that we can make Europe a beacon to the rest of the world and have a nuclear weapons-free Europe.

I will turn to Lilian Macer if she is okay to come in. The point has been made that we are stuck in discussions. Is there anything that we could recommend should happen now?

I know that Cara Stevenson wants to come back in, but is there a way of providing for sectoral bargaining across all areas—in the public, private and third sectors—now and in the future through the bill?

So, the key message is that action can happen now.

I have another question, which is for Dave Moxham. I am interested in the minister’s observation that only 19 per cent of the workforce is unionised. Is there anything that might help to increase union membership in the sector, which we know is dominated by female workers? We want to make the maximum improvement to terms and conditions, because we know that that would change social care for the good in the longer term.