Seòmar agus comataidhean

I, too, thank Rona Mackay for her commitment to fetal alcohol spectrum disorder and for bringing this important debate to the chamber to mark international FASD awareness month. As others have said, it is vital that the Parliament has an opportunity to talk about the issue, raise awareness and call for continued action to support interventions. As parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to look at how we reduce the prevalence and impact of FASD in Scotland and support those who live with it.

As we have heard, it has been estimated that about 3.2 per cent of Scotland’s young people live with FASD. That figure is stark when we consider that, as the motion states, it is the most common preventable neurodevelopmental condition in Scotland. The evidence from the University of Glasgow, which members have mentioned, suggests that the prevalence could be higher than we previously thought, with about 42 per cent of babies having been exposed to alcohol in pregnancy and 15 per cent showing signs of exposure to high and frequent consumption.

As has been stated, FASD is preventable, and the UK chief medical officers have made it clear that alcohol and pregnancy do not mix. They recommend that the safest approach for people who are pregnant or are planning a pregnancy is not to drink alcohol at all. That will keep the risks to the baby to a minimum. Drinking alcohol at any stage of pregnancy risks the development of a neurodevelopmental disorder, and it is important that people understand that.

However, I want to make two points in that regard. First, more than a quarter of women in the United Kingdom are unaware of that advice not to drink alcohol. Secondly, it is estimated that 45 per cent of pregnancies in the UK are unplanned. What do we do about that? How do we make sure that that information is available to young women who are planning a pregnancy and to those who do not know that they are pregnant?

Clearly, there is an important piece of work to be done to ensure that the messaging is clear for women throughout their life, so that they get that information. We have a responsibility to make sure that our pre-conception strategy is such that people get that information.

Another important point is that binge drinking—consuming lots of alcohol in a short period of time—is thought to bring a particular risk of FASD. We know that, in Scotland, there is an element of binge drinking among women. We in the Parliament must use the opportunity of this debate to talk about the wider approach to an alcohol strategy for Scotland that seeks to change our problematic relationship with alcohol.

Alcohol policy needs to be a range of measures, formulated and implemented by the Government and other public bodies, that are designed to prevent, improve or treat the health and social problems that are associated with problematic alcohol use. Given past commitments from the Government and the minister, I hope that, in her response to the debate, she will discuss the public health measures on which we might be able to improve and move forward, and the pace at which we might do that.

As I draw my remarks to a close, I thank all colleagues for the discussion. We must seek to get the best support for those who live with FASD, and we must seek to improve diagnosis and support. However, prevention is key and, in Scotland, we know that we need to move forward with that. I thank all my colleagues for contributing.

I have listened closely to what the witnesses have said that we can and should do now. However, part of the committee’s responsibility is to scrutinise the bill as it progresses. I am interested in monitoring. The papers mention performance, but having listened to the witnesses, I think that we are talking about whether the bill and the amendments address the outcomes that we wish to achieve for the people that we seek to represent and support. Pauline Lunn, in particular, expressed strong feelings on that. Will you talk to us a wee bit about the bill and the amendments as they stand? Can we monitor the processes and get the outcomes that we are looking for? Can we get that right? Can we hold people to account for that?

Am I picking up rightly that monitoring seems to be based on process, but that what is really important in is quality both for the individual for whom we provide the service and for their family?

Am I right in picking up—

I just want to pick up the point about the social care workforce being seen as very professional, which is something that I think that we can all agree on. There are two questions to ask in that respect. There is a sense that we are very slow in getting justice for that workforce. Particularly with regard to sectoral and collective bargaining, should we be looking at whether we need to do things now, as well as trying to make robust advances with regard to what would be in the bill? Can we do things now on fair work and bargaining?

No—that is fine. Thank you.

With regard to our being able to robustly monitor and put forward improvements that would work for people and staff members, you are saying that we would need to make sure that more funding was available—that even if what we had to do was clear in writing, it would not be doable if we do not have the resources to implement it.

You have mentioned the missing millions campaign. Is there any sense that the Government is picking up on the notion that we should seek to remove the private sector from the provision of service? Has there been any engagement on that at all?

Despite the discussion about whether the bill should progress, we still have to scrutinise amendments, as they stand.

One question that I am interested in is whether you think that the bill would, with amendments, give us a robust way of monitoring improvements in social care and make sure that we can look at performance in social care and outcomes for clients. Would the amendments, as they stand, allow us to do that, if the legislation was in place?

I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of his statement. The reality for our staff and communities is that winter pressures now happen all year round. I will focus on delayed discharge and will use figures to do that, but we must remember that those are about real people and their families, whose lives are on hold.

The most recent monthly data, which is for July, in the middle of summer, revealed that an average of 1,900 beds were occupied each day as a result of delayed discharge and that 61,165 total bed days were lost, which is the highest ever monthly figure.

The Government talks up its joint plan with local government, but that includes no new money and is just not sustainable. Will the cabinet secretary say what it will take for this Government to take clear action on that particular point?