Seòmar agus comataidhean

To ask the Scottish Government what support is currently available for those experiencing long waiting times for an ADHD assessment. (S6O-04617)

I thank the minister for her answer, especially in relation to signposting patients.

In Lanarkshire, in recent years, the number of ADHD referrals has equalled those of all other mental health conditions combined. Given that volume, NHS Lanarkshire is developing a new care model. Will the minister provide an expected timeline for when the new ADHD service pathway will be available?

To ask the Scottish Government what support is available to parents, carers and pupils to help with stress during the exam season. (S6O-04596)

I thank the cabinet secretary for her answer—I, too, wish every pupil well and hope that they achieve their ambitions. Does she agree that there is no single path to success and that it is important to recognise the many routes that exist into careers and fulfilling ambitions, including modern apprenticeships, vocational courses and tremendous colleges, such as New College Lanarkshire in my constituency, which offer articulated routes into career choices?

Today’s debate brings to mind a recurring problem that we have in Scotland—one that I have seen across a number of areas, particularly in science. We do not talk up the incredible scientific developments that are taking place here enough. We are all familiar with the country’s rich scientific and engineering legacy. At the height of the industrial revolution, the prodigious Scots practically invented the modern world, but what about more modern developments? What about the genuinely world-leading research in life sciences, our burgeoning renewables industry, our tech sector and our games ecosystem?

I recall a meeting of the cross-party group on science and technology that I chaired that focused on the groundbreaking work in Scotland on quantum tech and semiconductors. Quantum tech, semiconductors, photonics and wireless all have a role to play in healthcare, net zero, communications, financial services and space—you name it. We need to celebrate the work that is going on in Scotland more and recognise just how much research, development and delivery is taking place here.

Last month, my colleague Kenny Gibson hosted an event for Scotland’s critical technologies supercluster in which the following sub-sectors were included: photonics, quantum tech, semiconductors, wireless and sensing technologies—and hydrogen. We do not hear enough about that incredible work. In my research for this debate, I found that the same problem is apparent for hydrogen. I confess that I was not aware of the scale of Scottish hydrogen projects. The Scottish Government has implemented funding schemes to kickstart green hydrogen projects across the country, and such projects will be an integral part of the energy mix in the transition to a more sustainable society.

Our hydrogen economy is growing rapidly. The Scottish electrolytic hydrogen production market is estimated at 126 terawatt hours. Scotland is one of Europe’s largest offshore renewable energy zones, which makes it ideally placed for large-scale hydrogen projects and inward investment, while also giving us the tools that are required to become a major green hydrogen exporter—we heard earlier about the money that would be involved in that. That critical demand for hydrogen looks set to grow.

Let us be clear: hydrogen is not our only green energy market but is part of a mix. We need to work across different sectors and different types of sustainable energy generation, and hydrogen will become a more important player. The need for the energy transition is an existential reality for us in Scotland, because the climate crisis is an existential threat. It is depressing that I feel the need to reiterate that point, but anti-scientific sentiment is rife. Bad faith actors are intent on obscuring the reality of climate breakdown, because many perceive it as a threat to their profit margins or political interests.

The fact remains that we need to shift to sustainable energy sources. The natural disasters that we have become used to seeing in the news cycle are not natural in the true sense; they are the result of accelerated climate breakdown that is caused by human activity. The science is clear on that. Addressing the climate crisis is both an economic and environmental necessity.

Our European allies are pivoting away from reliance on Russian gas in response to Putin’s barbaric invasion of Ukraine, and that threat to energy security is also a reflection of the need to move to sustainable energy sources, as an environmental imperative and an economic strategy.

I first became aware of the interest in hydrogen during my first session in Parliament, when I hosted an SGN event. At that point, it was talking about the possibility of using hydrogen in a domestic setting in Scotland. Following the Government’s investment of £32 million in the Fife hydrogen hub for H100 Fife, we have seen the first hydrogen-powered homes being opened by the First Minister in February this year. Although I appreciate that some concerns have been raised, we must explore the opportunities, and that proof of concept is the first stage in looking at how we might be able to roll that out around the country. That has gone from being a concept in 2011 to being delivered in 2025, when we see people using that technology in their homes.

The Scottish Government has funded two North Sea energy alliance bilateral Scottish-German research projects to investigate hydrogen pipeline infrastructure between Scotland and Germany. I believe that that will be a crucial part of the future of energy security and energy delivery in Scotland, and I welcome everything that the Scottish Government is doing to support the industry and to create proof-of-concept projects that will let us start rolling out hydrogen across many areas of industry and in our homes. I look forward to seeing that work developing in the coming years and contributing to Scotland’s economy.

I, too, thank Emma Harper for bringing the debate to the chamber, and for her continued dedication to everything about lung health.

The subject is timely. Spring brings welcome warmer weather, but increased pollen levels can lead to flare-ups of respiratory issues, including asthma. With asthma being the most common respiratory condition, and given that it affects people of all ages, it is disappointing to hear that only 24 per cent of people who live with asthma report receiving the three basic checks for asthma care. The three checks are an annual review, inhaler technique check and written action plan. If people take one thing away from the debate, I want everyone to know that, if they are living with asthma, they can speak to clinicians, their general practitioner or those in front-line services about the basic checks.

Asthma is a relatively well-understood condition and it is common, but—as Maurice Golden said—that does not mean that it should be treated lightly. As the motion notes,

“2023 saw the highest number of asthma deaths recorded in Scotland in over 30 years”.

That speaks to the seriousness with which we should all treat the basic checks and the importance of advocacy of the global initiative for asthma and charities such as Asthma and Lung UK.

We are taking respiratory health more seriously. Air pollution is now getting much-needed prominence in public policy, and it has been a recurring subject of the cross-party group on accident prevention and safety awareness, which I have the privilege to convene. The group tends to raise it in the context of child safety. Planning proposals around schools and nurseries need to be cognisant of the danger that air pollution presents for children, in particular.

Members may remember the awful case of Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah. Ella died following an asthma attack in 2013, with an inquest later finding air pollution as a material contribution to her death in London. That was the first time in the UK that air pollution was recognised as a factor in such deaths. The levels of nitrogen dioxide—which Emma Harper talked about—near Ella’s home had exceeded World Health Organization and European Union guidelines.

Her mother, Rosamund, understandably could not describe her settlement as a win in that situation, given the unimaginable tragedy that was inflicted on her family, but it puts a stark emphasis on the importance with which policy makers and legislators should treat clean air strategies. Rosamund’s sobering words, after a mammoth legal saga, were that

“The fact that in 2024 children continue to die from asthma is not acceptable.”

Ella’s death was preventable. Indeed, according to the Global Initiative for Asthma, most of these deaths are preventable. Asthma is one of the most common chronic non-communicable diseases. It affects more than 260 million people and is responsible for more than 450,000 deaths each year worldwide.

Managing the condition and managing attacks is often a matter of basic accessibility to inhaled treatments. That brings the focus of this year’s world asthma day theme into sharp relief: “Make Inhaled Treatments Accessible for ALL”.

I thank Emma Harper and other members who have contributed to the debate. I hope that it will go some way to raise the importance of the management of asthma among those who watch the debate.

The birth of a new baby is one of the most exciting times in a family. There is nothing more precious than the birth of a baby, and for parents and families, concerns for safety around that time are huge. As a mother and a step-grandmum, I understand those concerns only too well, and I share the concerns of my constituents in that regard. However, for people who have had to go through the most difficult experience of pre-term birth, when their hope is simply to celebrate a new family member, it must be heartbreaking, and I can only imagine their stress and worry.

I am very proud of the record of the team at the neonatal unit in University hospital Wishaw, in my constituency. The care and support offered during an acutely difficult and uncertain time is invaluable to families, so I know why the issue brings up such strong feelings and can be emotive.

Nevertheless, we have a responsibility not to add fuel to the fire of that anxiety. We all want the best outcomes for constituents, and for new families at an uncertain time. I know without a doubt that every one of my colleagues, whatever their party affiliation, wants the best for their constituents. As policy makers, however, we have to be guided by the evidence. We cannot ignore the clinical expertise; the Scottish Government cannot do so either, and nor should it.

I agree with many of Meghan Gallacher’s points, and I know of her commitment in this area. I agree with the substantive points about implementation, and the need for assurance and certainty about the way forward. We all want a new model of care to have the very best standards, driven by clinical recommendations that seek the best life chances for babies, including the best chances for the sickest babies and for those for whom an early pre-term birth is predicted.

The clinical analysis with which we have all been presented shows that, in order to achieve the best outcomes for the small number of very premature babies, care is best delivered in units that regularly see the most complex cases and have ready access to specialist support services. Without a doubt, the new model must be underpinned by adequate and sustainable funding, as must all our public health services. Providing reassurance to new parents is critical, too, and in that respect, issues such as overnight accommodation, access to specialist support and certainty that their baby will receive the best possible care will all be crucial to making a success of the new national model.

In 2017, the “Best Start” report was published, with recommendations on a new model of neonatal care based on the British Association of Perinatal Medicine’s definitions of levels of care, and proposals to move from the current model of eight neonatal intensive care units to a model of three units, supported by the continuation of the current units. That is important: the three specialist intensive care units are to be supported by the current neonatal units, including the one at Wishaw. It is a redesign of the system, and Wishaw will be designated as a local neonatal unit, still providing care for neonatal babies.

The three proposed neonatal intensive care units in Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen are units that have already conducted specialist services, including neonatal surgery, which is not available at Wishaw, as it has neither the capacity nor the expertise to facilitate it. The redesign of services will not affect the vast majority of those attending the local prenatal unit at Wishaw.

In the example of Wishaw, the changes have been said to apply to a tiny minority of one or two babies per month, who are most at risk and whose survival chances would be improved in one of the three specialist units. All local neonatal units across Scotland will continue to provide that care for babies born later than 27 weeks.

The options appraisal happened in 2023, and the recommendations for the new neonatal model of care are underpinned by strong evidence that population outcomes for the most premature and sickest babies are improved by delivery and care in units that look after a critical mass of such babies. Under the new model of care, it is intended that mothers who it is suspected will have an extreme pre-term labour will be transferred before labour—and preferably before giving birth—to the maternity unit at one of the hospitals with intensive care expertise, allowing mother and baby to receive the best care.

We know that, practically, that will not always be possible, and reassurance based on other cases is vital. In the circumstances where that has not happened, a specialist neonatal transport—

Oh—my apologies, Deputy Presiding Officer. I thank the people who work in the Wishaw neonatal unit, and I look forward to hearing the minister’s response to the queries that Ms Gallacher and I have raised.

I absolutely agree with everything that Mr Adam has said about snobbery. I once attended a talk by Sergio Casci, a British Academy of Film and Television Arts awards and Palme d’Or nominee. His favourite of the lines that he wrote for “River City” was one that was delivered by Scarlett: “This place smells like a bus full of wet students.”

Sergio started his career on “River City”. It should be absolutely clear to everyone that the talent of the people who produce and work on “River City” is world class; we should not judge their contribution to Scotland’s film and TV industry as being anything other than first class.

I have to say that am a bit incredulous at the lack of humility in the debate this afternoon, given that Labour has said that it is making the cuts because of the ridiculous Liz Truss budget that crashed the economy and left additional black holes that even Labour did not anticipate when it came into power.

Let us not dance around it—these welfare reforms are appalling. Shamelessly trying to balance the books on the back of the sick and disabled is just not plausible. To channel Mr Kinnock from a Labour conference debate that I remember well, that is coming from a Labour Government—a Labour Government—that is abandoning the most vulnerable.

The strategies and cuts to social security that it used to oppose when the Tories were in charge, Labour now enthusiastically supports. The only change that I see is the final erosion of Labour values. Those cuts will hurt people hard in my Motherwell and Wishaw constituency. I quote:

“Partly owing to our industrial heritage, my constituency has relatively high levels of disability?and chronic illness—as a result of old injuries from those days—and that has made my community particularly vulnerable to the welfare cuts.”

Those are not my words, but the words of Labour MP for Airdrie at the time and now Labour MP for Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke, Pamela Nash. Those words of condemnation of cuts came when George Osborne and the Tories were cutting critical social security support for disabled people. Now that the Labour Party is doing it, many Labour MPs have abandoned their principals and their constituents.

I have been accused of scaremongering on the issue, but this is not about scaremongering. It is about standing up for people who are facing the imposition of poverty by design and by Labour. Are anti-poverty charities scaremongering? Are sick and disabled people who fear for their financial security scaremongering?

It bears repeating that the UK Government’s own analysis has shown that its welfare cuts will push 250,000 people into poverty, including 50,000 children. The Resolution Foundation said that the cuts would result in between 800,000 and 1.2 million people losing support of between £4,200 and £6,300 a year by 2029-30.

The cuts will fall hard on disabled families. From previous work in this Parliament on the Tories’ welfare reform, we know that it will have a significant impact on single-parent families, many of whom are women.

Evidence from the Citizens Advice network in Scotland shows that disabled people already find that their income is not enough to live on. The proposed reforms will result in a reduction of £5 billion in social security expenditure. In the words of Citizens Advice Scotland,

“this will further entrench the disproportionate impact of poverty and destitution on disabled people. It will also result in costs elsewhere: crisis care, NHS, poverty, homelessness.”

We have become too used to talking about mitigation in the chamber. I have often talked about it under the guise of devolution. The notion of devolution is about making different policy choices, but some people of the unionist persuasion often make that argument while casually ignoring the impact on Scotland of budgetary decisions made at a UK level. The UK Government cuts spending, there is a reduction in Scotland’s spending and we are just told to lump it.

We have almost become numb to the concept of mitigating the worst impacts of Westminster policy decisions, so what real choice do we have? We cannot abandon people to the worst excesses of UK Government austerity, so we have to spend that money, but it comes at a cost to our fixed budget.

Labour could end that cycle by taking meaningful actions on policies that are driving people into poverty. Instead, however, it has chosen to cut, cut, cut, just like its Tory predecessors. Labour’s rhetoric treats people with hostility and suspicion, rather than compassion or respect.

Over the past 14 years, the SNP Scottish Government has invested a staggering £1.2 billion in shielding Scots from the worst impacts of Westminster policy through discretionary housing payments, the Scottish welfare fund, money advice services and universal credit Scottish choices. We are investing in programmes that counter the bedroom tax, the benefit cap and the worst of Westminster austerity, and we brought in the Scottish child payment to lift children out of poverty. Now, Labour is choosing to push children into poverty. Is that the limit of its ambition when it is in power?

There is another aspect of all this. We may say that getting more people into economic activity would be good. Yes, that would be of benefit to people, who would find independence through the working process. However, we should not stand back and blame them, without asking the question why inequality is rising. The impact is not equal on everyone. The rich are getting richer, and Labour has chosen to try and balance the books on the backs of the most vulnerable.