Seòmar agus comataidhean

It is estimated that 50,000 pregnant women are trapped in Gaza, with around 5,000 due to give birth during the next month, and without clean water, medicine and humanitarian aid those women and their babies will be at risk, which is devastating. What discussions have been had with relevant aid organisations regarding the specific challenges that pregnant women face, and in future discussions regarding humanitarian aid, will the cabinet secretary raise the specific needs of that key, vulnerable group whenever he has the opportunity?

I, too, thank Willie Coffey for bringing this debate to the chamber. On behalf of Scottish Labour, I welcome the recognition of pancreatic cancer awareness month and world pancreatic cancer day, which will be marked tomorrow. It is critical that we take time to mark those events and I wish everyone who is involved all the best for the work that will be carried out tomorrow and in the rest of the month.

As other members have said, raising awareness of illnesses such as pancreatic cancer is pivotal to ensuring early diagnosis and improving the prognosis. Like Miles Briggs, I have spoken in our previous debates on the subject since I was elected, and I always consider it important to highlight the key symptoms.

We know that the problem is that people do not recognise the key symptoms of pancreatic cancer. Those include abdominal or back pain or discomfort, unexplained weight loss or loss of appetite, yellowing of the skin or eyes or itchy skin, a change in bowel habits, nausea or vomiting, and indigestion that does not respond to treatment. Knowing those symptoms and seeking medical advice, even as a precaution, can be life saving or life prolonging, and it is key that we continue to support the public awareness campaigns on that, as all members have said. According to Pancreatic Cancer UK, only 8 per cent of people can name the most common symptoms of pancreatic cancer, which is far too low. We know that, so, to save and prolong lives, we must increase the numbers significantly.

I thank the various organisations that contacted me ahead of today’s debate, along with the members of the public whose family members have been affected who also contacted me. Such briefings are always important and highlight the sheer scale of the challenge that we face given the destructive nature of pancreatic cancer. We always appreciate the work that has gone into putting together such briefings for us.

Other members have mentioned the importance of research. We know from research that pancreatic cancer is the deadliest common cancer. More than half of people die within three months of diagnosis, and seven in 10 people with pancreatic cancer never receive any treatment, often because of late diagnosis. This is a significant challenge that demands immediate response, as others have said. That is why I give my full support to Pancreatic Cancer UK’s “Don’t write me off” campaign, which sets out three priorities, which are to make diagnosis, treatment and care faster, fairer and funded. As I noted, many pancreatic cancer sufferers will not receive treatment, so we need that diagnosis and treatment to be much faster.

As I often do in the chamber, I will talk a little about inequalities that exist among people seeking support and treatment. The socioeconomic health inequalities that create deep, divisive and damaging inequalities in our communities also matter in these circumstances. We need to support people to speak to their general practitioner or a local nurse whenever they can. Even if that is just a precaution, it is always worth it.

As has been said, we need to address funding to provide support for patients. The motion talks about the fact that we need funding for services. The national health service is struggling at times, particularly with long waiting times, slow diagnosis and a lack of readily available treatment. We must address that and look at the funding sources. As I think everybody would agree, the NHS is our proudest possession—it is certainly my party’s proudest creation. We would be letting people down if we were not honest about the things that we need to do.

I thank everyone in the public gallery and all the members who have spoken.

I know that we are tight for time, convener, but I am interested in the issue of regulation and the link with public health, which we have already discussed and which Professor Banks has talked about.

Under the marketing theme, we talked about the industry’s heavy influence. I want to be clear about where we in the Scottish Parliament are and should be going on public health. Are you aware of undue influence from the tobacco companies or similar companies on our public health intentions?

I have been advised that reduced access to community health facilities and the increased pressure on and workload for community midwifery teams have led, in relation to in-person appointments in Ayrshire and Arran, to a situation in which

“many women do not ‘meet’ their named midwife until 22 weeks of pregnancy”.

That wait is far too long and is of significant concern.

Will the cabinet secretary outline how the Government is working with health boards to eliminate long waits for pregnant women who are looking to meet their named midwife in person? Has the Government explored asking health boards to formally record the length of those waits per case?

To conclude, I support this reinvestment in our communities.

It is right that consensus has been found in the chamber today, in so far as it has been recognised that the cashback for communities programme has been beneficial to our communities and that it must be continued in years to come to allow that impact to be felt and seen in our communities.

The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, which was delivered by a Labour Government, paved the way for the introduction of initiatives such as the cashback for communities programme, and it is heartening to hear from members about the impacts that it has had. Those funds are aimed at delivering positive futures for our young people, which is a legacy of a Labour Government. It is appropriate that the scheme continues to deliver for young people and seeks to ensure positive destinations for young people.

However, it is important that we note the role of restorative justice in the debate. Although the funds that have been collected are reinvested in initiatives that tackle antisocial behaviour, sporting activities and other positive programmes that we have heard about, it should be highlighted that access to restorative justice practices can prevent crime and antisocial behaviour as well as reducing reoffending. I hope that the Scottish Government will support Labour’s amendment at decision time, because it makes an important addition to a motion that rightly recognises the success of the programme.

Communities tell us of their fear that young people turn to crime if investment, opportunity and activity are lacking. I am sure that many members who are in the chamber have discussed that worry with parents, carers and the wider community. I have attended countless community councils and surgeries with local councillors where that issue has been brought to my attention.

The programme has had success and, as other members have said, we should dig deeper into it, because anything additional that we could do with the fund would be helpful. We need further investment in our communities in order to act on the real and serious concerns of those in our communities in the south of Scotland and beyond.

In preparing for the debate, like others, I noted several initiatives in my region that provide support to locally established groups such as the scouts and the girl guides, helping with digital work, badges and general sport and culture activities. Those things can seem small, but, as other members have said, those resources are scarce for some families. Those trips, away days and activities can be very impactful. For our small Ayrshire communities, which can be isolated, those small steps can be a big help in encouraging young people to participate in groups and clubs and engaging with the wider community.

We are all aware that communities, particularly rural and isolated communities, talk about the lack of activities and facilities for young people in villages and how that is linked to antisocial behaviour. Strengthening already existing groups in those communities can be helpful. Members across the chamber mentioned such community groups, and perhaps we could look at how they could be supported. I am sure that the minister would be able to comment on that. I note with interest that organisations such as Aberlour have received some of the funding. Those groups work at grass-roots level and will receive funds in phase 6, which I am pleased about.

There is local interest in supporting our young people and preventing crime. The benefits of the programme are clear, but it needs to be matched with strong funding for local services to ensure that our communities work for those who are most at risk of being caught up in the criminal justice system, which others have mentioned.

More needs to be done on organised crime. People involved in organised crime can take millions of pounds in cash and assets, and we need to ensure that that cash can be seized and moved. Other members have spoken clearly about that.

Is it helpful to think and talk about minimum unit pricing as part of a package of public health measures that aim to change the direction in this country away from alcohol harm?

Thank you very much.

I am interested in the right of the child to a family life, because we can all imagine this subordinate legislation having an effect on that. How can we ensure that young people who are in that situation have that right? Does the legislation comply with the provisions in the European Convention on Human Rights and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child regarding the right to a family life and support for legal agency?

Thank you very much for the evidence. I am interested in the various income groups. Early on, there were concerns about MUP disproportionately affecting low-income groups and, on the other side, whether it would have an impact on people in more affluent areas.

I am interested to get clarity on the current pricing. For MUP to work, do we need to increase the price? Will it continue to have the same broad effects on those groups or do we have any concerns about it disproportionately affecting lower-income groups because of the other crises in income that people face?