Seòmar agus comataidhean

I thank Paul Sweeney for his intervention; I absolutely will come on to that point. Those services are important and we should build on them, and the social deprivation element must be part of our discussions.

I think that we can all agree that people of a young age in particular are at a point in their life where they should have positive years ahead. Even when people are 55, that should be a time for them to be excited about the next stage in life, but the condition can make the basics of life intolerable. Dr Chetcuti explained to me that he believes that, sadly, the lack of services for those patients means that many people live a life of poor quality or lose their life far sooner than they should.

The reasons that people end up with the condition are complex but, essentially, ARBD is caused by a person regularly drinking or binge drinking much more alcohol than the recommended limits, which, over time, can, if untreated, cause irreparable damage to the brain.

The brain damage is often caused by a lack of thiamine, also known as vitamin B1, which the brain requires in order to work properly. Absorption of thiamine while drinking alcohol to excess is one cause, but we know that those with serious dependency often have chaotic lifestyles, and that can result in poor dietary intake, which exacerbates the lack of thiamine.

It was reporting on the use of thiamine in treatment that made me realise how important it was to raise awareness of the condition and argue for better services. That treatment should be achievable, but people need knowledgeable clinicians and specialist services to support them. There is evidence that if excessive alcohol consumption is stopped and thiamine intake is increased, around 25 per cent of people can make a full recovery and 50 per cent of people can make a partial recovery. However, the reality is that, as a result of a lack of services to raise the profile of ARBD and its treatment, those opportunities are being missed. That is an important point.

As my friend Martin Whitfield said, it is often younger people who are affected, and they can experience poor quality of life. Care home beds for them are very expensive, and that poor quality of life continues because, once someone is admitted, it is difficult to get the expertise to support them and get them home. The evidence shows that we can change that, and it is important that we talk about that in Parliament.

I know that time is tight, Deputy Presiding Officer, but we cannot have a debate on the subject without mentioning the root causes of alcohol misuse, the link to poverty and deprivation and the role of Government in policy development. I acknowledge the Government’s role—as the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health will know—in progressing minimum unit pricing. However, I hope that the minister might, in her closing remarks, respond with regard to future movement on the introduction of evidence-based population-wide measures around availability and marketing of alcohol products. With those measures, we would see population-level changes in alcohol intake, resulting in a change to the drinking norms in Scottish society. That is the reality.

In my final minutes—I promise, Deputy Presiding Officer—I return to services for people who are currently suffering from ARBD. The reality is that services are at risk of diminishing rather than expanding. I believe—as I hope that I have shown tonight—that we need to take the subject seriously. I hope that the debate is merely the start of a conversation in the Scottish Parliament. What high-quality service provision currently exists for those who are suffering from ARBD, and how does the Government ensure that funding for those services continues and that there is funding to open other services in Scotland?

We must talk about national treatment standards and how we ensure that there is a referral pathway for the condition to the services that provide care.

I will stop there, Deputy Presiding Officer.

The minister previously stated that the Government continues to explore other avenues, alongside self-sampling, that may improve the uptake level of cervical screening programmes, including consideration of better use of digital technology and more personalised communication. Can the minister give any further update on the detail of that?

I thank my colleague Jackie Baillie for moving her amendment 100 and speaking to her other amendments in the group. I hope that members will support those amendments. I particularly agree with her comments on sectoral collective bargaining. That has been an important part of discussions with the minister and others, but it is important that we get those measures in the bill.

I am happy to speak to the amendments in my name in the group, which seek to strengthen fair work principles in the bill and embed human rights. Amendment 107 seeks to ensure that international workers who are employed in social care shall enjoy all the rights and benefits of United Kingdom status, the social care sector and fair work in care. The amendment would require the Scottish ministers to create a fair work charter for internationally recruited workers, along with statutory guidance on

“the application of the code of practice on ethical commissioning ... and regulations on ethical procurement ... to the delivery of fair work for international workers.”

Amendment 108 would place a duty on the Scottish ministers to prepare and publish guidance on

“continuous improvement in the arrangements for fair work in the social care sector.”

The guidance would apply to all relevant public authorities and contracted providers and would be subject to review in each three-year period, with revised guidance being issued or a statement being laid before Parliament setting out that a revision is not needed.

Amendment 109 would create standardised

“acts and omissions of a contracted provider that constitute a reportable breach of contract in relation to fair work standards”,

which would be reported against. The intent is also to provide for remedies when there are breaches, including contract termination, and to create a standard approach to managing, reporting on and publishing information on breaches.

Although I appreciate that the measures that are set out in amendment 107 may be addressed elsewhere in legislation, I believe that the amendments strengthen the fair work principles in the bill, and I am interested to hear the minister’s response to that.

Amendment 110 seeks to ensure that contracted providers comply with the labour relations requirements that are referred to in amendment 105. Amendment 110 would also make the victimisation of social care workers on the grounds of trade union membership or trade union activity a breach of the measures in amendments 100 and 101, which have been lodged by Jackie Baillie, on the founding principles and social care duties.

The purpose of amendment 111 is to maximise the realisation of human rights for service users and workers in the social care sector by providing regulation-making powers and a duty to make regulation to achieve that purpose. Amendment 111 would require that such regulations include provision to cover financial transparency, control over profit, control over tax avoidance, sanctions for tax evasion, expansion of public and not-for-profit social care services, and establishment or designation of a care finance regulator. Human rights should be embedded in the bill and amendment 111 would significantly strengthen the bill in that regard.

Amendments 112 and 113 would create provisions for monitoring and reporting on fair work. Amendment 112 would create a common standard of fair work indicators with monitoring and reporting of those indicators to enforce fair work standards.

Amendment 113 would place a duty on Scottish ministers to publish an annual report on fair work in care in Scotland.

I urge members to support the amendments.

I thank my colleague Jackie Baillie for moving her amendment 100 and speaking to her other amendments in the group. I hope that members will support those amendments. I particularly agree with her comments on sectoral collective bargaining. That has been an important part of discussions with the minister and others, but it is important that we get those measures in the bill.

I am happy to speak to the amendments in my name in the group, which seek to strengthen fair work principles in the bill and embed human rights. Amendment 107 seeks to ensure that international workers who are employed in social care shall enjoy all the rights and benefits of United Kingdom status, the social care sector and fair work in care. The amendment would require the Scottish ministers to create a fair work charter for internationally recruited workers, along with statutory guidance on

“the application of the code of practice on ethical commissioning ... and regulations on ethical procurement ... to the delivery of fair work for international workers.”

Amendment 108 would place a duty on the Scottish ministers to prepare and publish guidance on

“continuous improvement in the arrangements for fair work in the social care sector.”

The guidance would apply to all relevant public authorities and contracted providers and would be subject to review in each three-year period, with revised guidance being issued or a statement being laid before Parliament setting out that a revision was not needed.

Amendment 109 would create standardised

“acts and omissions of a contracted provider that constitute a reportable breach of contract in relation to fair work standards”,

which would be reported against. The intent is also to provide for remedies when there are breaches, including contract termination, and to create a standard approach to managing, reporting on and publishing information on breaches.

Although I appreciate that the measures that are set out in amendment 107 may be addressed elsewhere in legislation, I believe that the amendments strengthen the fair work principles in the bill, and I am interested in hearing the minister’s response to that.

Amendment 110 seeks to ensure that contracted providers comply with the labour relations requirements that are referred to in amendment 105. Amendment 110 would also make the victimisation of social care workers on the grounds of trade union membership or trade union activity a breach of the measures in amendments 100 and 101, which have been lodged by Jackie Baillie, on the founding principles and social care duties.

The purpose of amendment 111 is to maximise the realisation of human rights for service users and workers in the social care sector by providing regulation-making powers and a duty to make regulation to achieve that purpose. Amendment 111 would require that such regulations include provision to cover financial transparency, control over profit, control over tax avoidance, sanctions for tax evasion, expansion of public and not-for-profit social care services, and establishment or designation of a care finance regulator. Human rights should be embedded in the bill and amendment 111 would significantly strengthen the bill in that regard.

Amendments 112 and 113 would create provisions for monitoring and reporting on fair work. Amendment 112 would create a common standard of fair work indicators with monitoring and reporting of those indicators to enforce fair work standards.

Amendment 113 would place a duty on Scottish ministers to publish an annual report on fair work in care in Scotland.

I urge members to support the amendments.

Given the minister’s comments, I will be happy to work with her, so I will not move amendment 107.

Amendment 107 not moved.

Amendments 108 to 114 not moved.

I thank Emma Harper for bringing this important debate to the chamber again this year. I also welcome the guests in the public gallery—it is great to have them here.

Like other parties, Scottish Labour supports the aims and objectives of eating disorders awareness week 2025 and its goal to raise awareness of how eating disorders can affect anyone. I ask people who need support to seek it, if they can, as the motion says, by contacting their GP surgery, or by phoning the Beat helpline or contacting that organisation through its website.

In seeking to better understand these complex mental illnesses and abolish stereotypes, I thank Beat for its survey, which shows that four out of five respondents

“thought that greater public awareness would make them feel more comfortable to talk about their eating disorder.”

That is an important point, and we in the chamber can contribute to that awareness.

We know that eating disorders affect not only the person with the condition but their friends and family, who can become carers and are often forced to watch their loved one struggle with that battle. Having open conversations can relieve the stigma for families, too, so it is important that we ensure that we have those conversations and reduce the stigma to allow the discussions to continue.

Is the cabinet secretary confident that all health and safety workplace regulations are being complied with and that all public bodies have single-sex toilets clearly marked as male and female? In her answer, I ask her to give us evidence of how that data was collected and, if it is not available, to commit to obtaining such information.

I thank the member for that intervention—it is a very important point. As the parent of a teenage daughter, I am concerned about some of the things that we see on social media. We all have a responsibility to talk about that so that we can address it.

As we have heard, eating disorders are not uncommon: one in 50 people in Scotland, and many people across the wider UK, are affected by them. We know that, tragically, the impacts can be fatal, and that is why we must raise these issues whenever we can.

I also highlight the issue of age at diagnosis, because that can sometimes be misunderstood. We know that most eating disorders develop during adolescence; however, there are cases of eating disorders developing in very young children and in adults, including examples of adults who develop such disorders well into their later years.

That might be shocking but it acts as a reminder to us all that eating disorders are prominent and serious across our whole population, and that they still have a taboo surrounding them. We know that that is particularly true when men are involved and they feel that they cannot speak about it. Again, that is very important for today’s debate.

As Beat has indicated, it is essential that we, as MSPs, take our role seriously. We need to raise awareness, fight for funding for research and scrutinise the Government’s delivery of full implementation of the plans for eating disorder services. I know that other members have asked the minister to respond to that.

One of the review’s recommendations was to establish a national eating disorder network to oversee implementation of the Government’s plans, and its terms of reference were published in July last year. The network is responsible for co-ordinating training and research implementation, along with improving links between primary and secondary care services. I am very interested in that point. Members will know that I worked in the national health service as an allied health professional, so I am aware of the importance of training and the link between primary and secondary care. Professionals in the network often discuss the importance of training and how we should ensure that people are aware of and can spot the various conditions or build-up across the spectrum to ensure that we can signpost and have appropriate resources.

I am aware of the time, but I want to make it clear that I have been impressed by the speeches in the chamber tonight. I hope that we can continue to have this conversation, because that is what tonight’s debate was about.

I thank the committee for inviting me to attend the meeting, because, as members know, I have previously spoken on the issue, and I want to ensure that people are fully aware of the extent of the situation involving people who have undergone the mesh procedure.

I echo the points that have been made by Katy Clark and the petitioners in their submissions to the committee. I support their point about the lack of data on the number of patients who are experiencing complications as a result of the use of mesh. It is concerning that we do not know whether we are capturing that data, which is important. The submissions highlighted the fact that the data that is currently being relied on is inconsistent, incomplete and often outdated. We should all take that issue very seriously. I will not repeat the point that the convener made about that, which was well made. It is clear the minister has taken the issue seriously.

Although the Scottish Health Technologies Group report is interesting, there is good reason to think that the data sets that it used are, as one of the petitioner’s submissions highlights, “narrow and incomplete”. Action could be taken to look at that.

In addition, the absence of follow-up data is worrying. We do not know whether any follow-up work is being done, although a commitment has been made that such work will be done. The full extent of mesh-related complications is also worrying. Given that complications might not be immediately apparent after surgery, could we have a system in place that would allow us to look at that?

I echo the points that Katy Clark made, and I request that the committee keeps the petition open and perhaps writes to the Government regarding a review of the current data sets, so that we can continue to support the work of the petitioners.

I am pleased to open the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour to discuss an issue that touches the lives of many families across Scotland. It is vital that we look at what more can be done to improve miscarriage and stillbirth care, so that the next generation does not suffer the same dismissal that perhaps many women have suffered before.

I thank the minister and her officials for the collective way in which they formed the motion. We all want to support and progress the issue to ensure that the care that women receive only improves over the coming years.

At this stage, I welcome the framework, but I am sure that the minister will expect there to be scrutiny from members on how actions are delivered. It is fair to say that some elements of care are delayed, and we need to treat the situation with some urgency.

Let me, like other members, acknowledge the deep emotional toll that miscarriage and stillbirth take on individuals and their families. It is a grief that is often unspoken, and it is crucial that we recognise the profound impact that it has on the many women and families who, sadly, require access to such services.

Although I hope that stigma around miscarriage has reduced, let us not forget that it persists. To address that, we in the Parliament must do our part to talk about it, as the minister and Brian Whittle said, and to work out a way to rectify and improve the care pathway for women who have to travel it. Therefore, I thank all the members who will speak in the debate or who have stayed in the chamber to listen.

I express my gratitude to all NHS staff. We know that the kindness and expertise of staff is at the heart of our NHS. I am sure that, like me, other members from across the chamber hear from patients time and again about the care that they receive in the NHS. In the brief look that I have had at the document, I see actions around supporting staff, which is extremely welcome.

My party welcomes the recommendations from The Lancet’s miscarriage matters series and supports the staff who continue to work on improving miscarriage care across Scotland following those publications. We welcome the progesterone pathway and, of course, support the graded model of care.

We must ensure that the “Delivery Framework for Miscarriage Care in Scotland” can be fully implemented across all NHS health boards to improve the pathway for women. I have seen the goals in the framework. However, we know from the scoping exercise that not all NHS boards routinely or equitably—even across individual boards—provide the same service for patients, which is an important point. Perhaps in the minister’s closing speech we could get an idea of how that might be monitored, so that we can progress it. We should keep a tight look at the framework as we go forward.

Every case of miscarriage or stillbirth is a devastating tragedy for the parents and the wider family. We know that people face many unfair and avoidable inequalities when attempting to access health services, due to financial or geographic differences, which can significantly impact on pregnancy and infant mortality. Inequalities are a barrier for many families, and it is our responsibility to ensure that services recognise that and have firm policies in place to ensure that all services are provided with that in mind. I will look at the framework in that regard. We know that people from our poorest communities access services less readily or much later than more affluent families. Addressing that must be part of any Government strategy.

Disparities due to geography remain far too prevalent; I do not think that it is unfair of me to say that. We talk in the chamber about the journeys that patients have to make, and I am sure that members recognise that issue. In Scotland, we have pockets of extreme rurality. We must seek to workforce plan and have the skills available to attend women, rather than the other way round. I will look at the framework to see how we ensure that that is embedded in what we do.

I am very aware of the time but, like Brian Whittle, I want to touch on the devastating psychological impact of miscarriage for women and the wider family. Psychological services should be available to ensure that people have care right through afterwards. People will perhaps have seen the Engender briefing, which highlighted that such services were not available during the Covid period, which really affected people. There was definitely a link with women not having their family support around them at that time. Should there be any time in the future when we need to think about how we provide services, it is absolutely clear that women require that support.

I wanted to touch on the space that women have, although I do not have a lot of time left. My colleague Monica Lennon has done so much work on that, and she will possibly touch on it. I again thank everybody for coming along and speaking in the debate.