Seòmar agus comataidhean

I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests, as I am a member of the GMB trade union.

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government will reintroduce the social care staff support fund, or take other action to improve sick pay provision for social care workers, in the light of reports of a survey by GMB Scotland stating that 80 per cent of social care workers in the private sector have considered quitting, and wider warnings that the care sector is on the brink of collapse. (S6F-02119)

It is lovely to be back at the committee. Thank you for all your work on the petition. That was an excellent panel. The evidence was very interesting and I have been taking copious notes. Ann Stark, the petitioner, and her husband, Gerry, are in the gallery today. I highlight Ann’s work in building research in Scotland and making connections with colleagues elsewhere.

On my reflections, convener, I was struck by our need to modernise, to keep pace and to address some of the future challenges. It was really interesting to hear the work that colleagues have been pioneering in the Lancashire region in England. Obviously, there are other examples down south. However, there is some really good practice there, and for us in Scotland—both the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government—there is a lot that I hope we can learn from.

It was interesting to hear from Ann Edwards that the service—which, as came across strongly, is being delivered in partnership with a number of different partners but working closely with communities—is cost neutral. That is an important point for all of us. Also, there is no cost to family members from having the scans undertaken.

On the workforce challenges for pathology and radiology, it feels to me like there is a framework that we can consider. If colleagues in the Scottish Government wanted to consider it, they might want to have a different approach. Clearly, there is a big role for a private contractor and the Scottish Government might want to consider something different.

We should remember why we are here. Richard Stark passed away almost four years ago. He was 25. That is no age at all. He was very loved by his family and it was only when Richard died that they started to realise and understand what can happen to each of us or to our loved ones when we die. There are big issues around bodily autonomy and choice. I heard colleagues say that families are all different and there can be challenges within families. However, the issue is not only having information but informed consent, choice and dignity.

Before I came in, I was looking on my phone at the petition that Ann Stark lodged. I think that there are about 570 signatures on it now. The number has gone up quite a lot in the past couple of days because there has been some publicity about the work that the committee is doing. The more that we have such conversations, the more people want to get involved. The point was well made that some families might not be that bothered and do not want to know but, for others, the situation will be deeply distressing. Therefore, it is important that we bring the matter into the light.

As members know, there are different aspects to Ann Stark’s petition. Today, the committee has rightly focused a lot on the experience of colleagues in England with the use of scanners. However, that reinforces to me the point that there are alternatives. Technology is advancing all the time. We have heard that not a lot of work is required to refine the skills of colleagues in radiology. We have a fantastic workforce across the UK, which gives me a lot of hope.

We could spend all day talking about the issues around human tissue and genetic testing that were brought out towards the end of the discussion. They are emotive issues and, if there are opportunities to inform other family members that they might be at heightened risk of a disease or condition, of course we want to get that information to them but, as the petitioner has always said, the approach needs to be proportionate. Routinely removing brains and doing fully invasive post mortems are not necessary.

As we have heard a number of times from colleagues, time is really important. It is the biggest resource that we have across the public sector. The teams that we have heard about today are dealing with the living and the deceased. They have incredibly important work to do and, if we can be more efficient and more people centred and can bring people’s human rights into the matter, we should.

I am here because my constituents Ann and Gerry, who are sitting behind me, have had a horrific experience. It is bad enough to lose a loved one and to lose a child, but I would not want any family to go through the trauma that they endured after Richard died. That is why I am glad that the committee has been diligent in the work that it has been doing.

The evidence session brought out some of the challenges. Of course, no one expects what the petitioner is asking for to be perfect and a panacea but it strikes me that, in Scotland, we have fallen a bit behind. Really good practice is happening in Lancashire in particular. We need to learn from that. I hope that the Scottish Government will take that on board.

Because Ann is persistent, which I always encourage, she wrote again to every MSP in the past few days and had a tremendous response. The matter resonates with colleagues because we all have constituents and families. It is really about our humanity. We want to be able to learn lessons and apply them to future medical practice and so on. The topic has been neglected in Scotland and the research is underdeveloped, but we now have good evidence and engagement with colleagues across the UK. I thank the committee for its time.

Will the member give way?

I am pleased to speak in support of the Scottish Labour motion. I thank my colleague Alex Rowley for bringing his passion to the chamber today.

Public transport and buses are subjects close to all our hearts, but Alex Rowley is absolutely right—this debate is first and foremost about people. It is about the future of our communities and young people, and the very future of our planet.

Buses are essential lifelines for our communities. They enable younger and older people the freedom to travel around their communities and beyond. They should be an affordable and reliable alternative to cars, and they should be run in the interests of people and not private shareholders.

Buses are also an essential part of Scotland’s journey to net zero. The Scottish Government has rightly recognised the importance of buses in its national transport strategy and the programme for Government, where it pledged to support Scotland’s bus networks. Unfortunately, despite the importance of buses to net zero and those pledges from ministers, many of our communities face bus deserts, a point made by Graham Simpson—areas where few or no reliable regular bus services are available.

Scottish Labour supports the expansion of the national travel concessionary scheme that we introduced when in government, but the point has been made that what use is the free bus pass if no bus turns up at the bus stop? People are frustrated. The minister wants us all to be very calm today, but the reality is that we cannot solve a problem if we do not admit it in the first place. Therefore, I think it unfortunate that the Government wants to delete the fair and factual points that Labour makes in its motion.

Where bus services continue to exist, many people simply cannot afford to use them. We know that the people who rely on buses are predominantly those on lower incomes who cannot afford to buy a car. Around one third of people are without access to a car.

Beatrice Wishart mentioned some of the challenges that our remote and rural areas face.

Colleagues have heard me talk about the withdrawal of the X1 express bus service from Hamilton to Glasgow many times before. Back in July 2020, First Bus withdrew that lifeline service for people in Hamilton, which had enabled residents to get into the town centre and beyond it to the city centre. People relied on that route for work, as well as to access education, social and leisure opportunities and healthcare, including attending hospital appointments in Glasgow.

Since that time, we have come out of lockdown and people want to get out again. People have told me that a return journey from one end of Hamilton to the other just to see a doctor costs them £15. That is completely unaffordable.

I have raised the issue many times. The minister is new to his post, and I hope that we will meet soon, along with local people from Hamilton, to find solutions.

Sticking with the X1 bus, I think that I have told the minister this before, but I will say again that more than 100 people turned up at a bus stop recently to get a photo taken, to send a message that they want their bus back. That is how serious a matter this is. However, people not getting any answers.

The cancellation of the X1 bus and the campaign that the community is leading highlight how much people care about the services. Monday is the start of #lovemybus week. The people of Hamilton loved their X1 bus; communities around Scotland love their buses, too. It is time that the Scottish Government shows that it also loves buses and that it will provide not just the vision but the investment that we need for our people and the planet.

Will the member give way?

Will the member take an intervention?

Will the minister give way?

This evening, alongside the Scottish Trades Union Congress and the Sunday Mail, I am hosting a parliamentary reception to celebrate the food for thought campaign and the positive impact of universal free school meals across Scotland. All MSPs are invited, and we hope that the First Minister can join us to hear directly from young people how access to universal free school meals is reducing poverty, inequality and stigma.

Further to comments that he reportedly made in the Daily Record, will the First Minister provide an update on the roll-out of universal free school meals in primary schools and on the pilot programme to be launched in secondary schools?

Will that include co-operative models of energy schemes?

One of the things that I have been wondering about is how we can increase capacity building and training for local community energy projects, including at an early stage. Do you have any proposals to increase the funding for the community and renewable energy scheme—CARES—or other work to support innovation and improve capacity?