Seòmar agus comataidhean

I thank the Solicitor General for that response and for clarifying the roles and responsibilities of the Lord Advocate. Her office will be aware that my constituents Ann and Gerry Stark were told repeatedly by the Crown Office and health authorities that all tissue samples of their deceased son, Richard, had been returned to the family, but that was not true. Does the Crown Office accept that the failings in that case should never have happened? Will the law officers take the opportunity to apologise to the family? Can we have more information about the urgent action that was taken since the scandal came to light last year, so that all families, including the Stark family, can have full confidence in the Crown Office when it investigates the sudden and unexplained death of our loved ones?

To ask the Scottish Government what action the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service takes to ensure that any information that it receives from pathology service providers is accurate and reliable. (S6O-03127)

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking through the delivery of benefits to help families with the cost of nappies, in light of the reported increase in nappy theft linked to the cost of living crisis. (S6O-03109)

Notwithstanding the support that is available, we know that being unable to afford essential baby items is a reality for too many of our constituents. Nappy rationing is a horrible reality for many families and has a devastating impact on babies, children and parents.

The environmental benefits of reusable nappies are well known. They can also save families significant amounts of money, but the up-front costs can be a barrier. Scotland’s baby box gives families the opportunity to try reusable nappies, but the opt-in for that is quite low, at around 14 per cent. Will the cabinet secretary outline the ways in which the Government can come to understand that low uptake, raise awareness and make it easier for people to use such reusable products?

I will be guided by you as always, Deputy Presiding Officer.

I welcome the commitment that the minister gave to Stephen Kerr at the start of the debate on what workers and the people of Grangemouth—and, indeed, the people of Scotland—need, which is collaboration between not only the Scottish Government and the UK Government but all the key stakeholders. Stephanie Callaghan was right to bring us back to what matters. It is about people, their families and livelihoods. We can get caught up in the big economic picture, but the debate is about people and we need to hear their voices, too.

I am not a member of the Economy and Fair Work Committee, so I will defer to colleagues who were part of the inquiry into the just transition for Grangemouth. It is significant that the committee did that work. The report is good, and some things have been addressed.

However, I was concerned and disappointed to read at the very top of the report that Ineos turned down the committee’s opportunity to give evidence. I am not sure of the reason for that. That would have been a good opportunity to set out and get on the record what work the company is doing to contribute to Scotland’s net zero targets.

That is a useful clarification.

The report mentions the Grangemouth future industry board, which I understand has been recently repurposed. Graham Simpson touched on that, and there are definitely questions about getting the right people around the table and the potential roles for the Scottish National Investment Bank and people from the community, including workers and trade unions. I know that the UK Government recently hailed the repurposing of the future industry board as an opportunity for both Governments to come together. I hope that it is received in that spirit.

As we have heard in the debate, the approach to the issue has largely been consensual and cross-party. Richard Leonard recently hosted a drop-in session and we met Unite shop stewards who do not want politicking—they want to hold politicians to account and they want us to work together in the national interest.

I know that time is short and I have taken a couple of interventions, so I will conclude by saying that Derek Thomson, the Scottish secretary of Unite, told us that every option must be on the table. As we try very hard to build a just transition for workers and communities, we have to get our act together collectively. Every option must be on the table, but we need a planned approach. We have heard about the importance of an industrial strategy, which has been lacking, and we heard in the debate a commitment to joint working. Let us see what happens after recess.

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the Who Cares? Scotland research report, “Is Scotland Keeping the Promise?”, which reportedly indicates that, on the fourth anniversary of the publication of “The Promise”, key pledges made to care-experienced people are not being fulfilled. (S6F-02810)

I agree that Who Cares? Scotland deserves credit for the report, which highlights areas of progress but also major areas of concern. To give one example, its freedom of information investigation uncovered that care-experienced children have lost more than 1.3 million school days to exclusion, despite the Promise pledging to end that exclusion. That could be just the tip of the iceberg, as several councils could not provide any data.

We need transparency, accountability and leadership if we are to fulfil the Promise, but lack of data is a constant theme of the report. Does the First Minister agree that, to keep the Promise, we have to tackle quality of data? Will he and his Government urgently review the data that is held by public authorities and report annually to Parliament? What we have here is not good enough.

As mentioned in my entry in the register of members’ interests, I am a member of Unite the union and the GMB, and I undertake other trade union activities.

I join colleagues in thanking Stephen Kerr for securing this important debate. I echo my Scottish Labour colleague Daniel Johnson, who was right to say that the Scottish Government needs to devote some of its chamber debating time to the matter because that would allow for a fuller debate and more parliamentary scrutiny.

I think that we all welcome the fact that there has been a summit and engagement, and the recognition that there are challenges. However, although some progress might have been made, the amount of new woodland that has been created has fallen in each of the past five years. We cannot look at just one single year—that has been the direction of travel.

I can understand why stakeholders who have expertise and who operate on the front line are writing to the committee. They knew that you were coming here today, cabinet secretary, and they say that they are really worried. They are asking what action the Government will take to focus on woodland types that provide the greatest emissions benefits if the resource allocation is not increased. People are realistic about the 41 per cent cut not being massively reduced, but what other actions and mitigations are you going to take?