Blood Donation
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S3M-4282, in the name of Rhoda Grant, on giving blood, giving the gift of life. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes with concern the decline in the number of blood donors in Scotland, a number that has decreased by 30,000 in the last decade; further notes that in the Highlands alone, the service requires 23,000 donors to give blood in 2009; supports the appeal by the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service for donors to give blood at least once in 2009 to reverse the decline in the donor base; believes that there would be benefit in employers giving their staff paid time off to donate blood, and hopes that Scots who have not already done so will register to give blood and give the gift of life.
I am grateful to members who signed my motion. In doing so, they have allowed the debate to take place.
On behalf of the Parliament, I thank Thomas Bradley, who has made 600 blood donations since he started to donate in 1967. [Applause.] The Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service has told me:
"There has hardly been a time in his life when Thomas has not been donating regularly—he still continues to donate platelets every three weeks.
He says that he has been very lucky with his health, with only one bad spell back in 1971.
Thomas is a motorbike fanatic, and after a serious accident he needed emergency surgery and, ironically, a life saving blood transfusion. Thomas was aware that someone else had donated the blood that he needed, and now sees his donations as a way to return the favour.
Thomas has made a fantastic contribution, and has saved hundreds of lives, both directly and by allowing patients to undergo vital treatment. We cannot thank him enough!"
Thomas's contribution is humbling. I am envious of it—my donation record is considerably smaller than his. However, each donation can save a life.
The decision to give blood was difficult for me because I am terrified of needles. I reflected on that when I was preparing for the debate. I thought that not a lot had changed since I first gave blood, but that is not strictly true. I did not sleep at all the night before I first gave blood because I was absolutely petrified. Things are better now. I sleep the night before; the fear does not really kick in until I am lying on the bed. I still get scared, but being scared is not an excuse. If I can donate blood, anyone can. Of course, that fear pales into insignificance compared with that which families face when their loved ones are lying seriously ill waiting for a blood transfusion.
On one occasion when I was giving blood, I was beside somebody who worked for a major high street chemist. My fellow donor commented to the nurse that she would have to work late that night to make up the time she had spent giving blood. I was shocked. It occurred to me that if she had been unable to work late due to a family commitment or travel arrangements she could not have donated, and I wondered how many others are in the same position.
My plea is simple: people should be allowed paid time off to give blood. Employers should give people paid time off to do a range of things. They give people paid time off to keep medical and dental appointments, for example. Many go further and invite the transfusion service to come to their workplace with a donor vehicle or for smaller boardroom donor sessions if they do not have the critical mass of workers to justify the use of a donor vehicle. I pay tribute to those employers for going that extra step. Lives are at stake if people do not donate. Employers should therefore give people paid time off for our collective health care as they do in order that our individual health care needs can be met. I hope that, in her summing up, the minister will emphasise the need for donors and add her voice to my plea.
The issue is even more important because experts are warning of a rise in swine flu cases in the autumn: if a rise occurs, donors will be affected just like everyone else, and if they contract swine flu they will not be allowed to donate blood until they are clear of the virus. I think that that will also be the case for people who have been in close contact with someone with swine flu. There is therefore a real possibility that supplies of blood could be hit. More donors would ensure a secure transfusion service.
I am sure that many employers will say that, in a time of economic downturn, they cannot countenance what I want. It presents a challenge, but I am not suggesting that people travel long distances to give blood. Giving blood should take no longer than keeping a doctor's appointment. The Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service encourages three donations per person per year. That does not add up to a huge time commitment for individuals or employers, but the contribution to society is immense. On a more serious note, employers need to consider how they would feel if their loved ones needed a blood donation.
David Stewart, Peter Peacock and I have implemented a policy whereby our staff are allowed paid time off to donate blood. As a result, we have four new donors in our team and more than 50 per cent of our workforce now donates. Some had given blood previously but been turned away because they were on medication, but the medication criteria have changed and some people who were unable to donate can now do so. I urge anyone who has been turned away owing to a medical condition or because they were taking medication to check whether they now fall into the category of those who are allowed to give blood.
This week, the Public Petitions Committee heard a petition that asked for blood donors to be paid for their donations. I want to make it clear that that is not what I am asking for; people should act selflessly in donating blood—but they should not face financial detriment. Although I do not agree with the terms of the petition, I was heartened to see young people highlight the issue and take part in this important debate. It is great that our young people see the importance of donation and I am glad that they are looking for ways to increase our donor base.
I was recently made aware of the Richard Titmus book "The Gift Relationship: From Human Blood to Social Policy". Titmus argues that voluntary blood donation is an example of genuine socialism; that people who gift blood to strangers do so in a truly altruistic action. He goes on to argue that, although giving blood might make us feel a bit queasy for a short while—or a longer time, for some of us—it may also make us feel more human and content with ourselves and others.
The argument is relevant to today's debate. Collective action by Government, employers and others is needed to support the gift relationship. People need to be given a real opportunity to donate blood; we need to make it convenient for them to do so. If they were given that opportunity, many more people would choose to give blood, not only for the purely practical reason of increasing the amount of blood that flows through the transfusion service but as an expression of their fellowship with other people and of the intrinsically social nature of their humanity.
I congratulate Rhoda Grant on securing a debate that highlights the decline in the number of blood donors in Scotland. Debating the issue gives the Parliament the opportunity to highlight the reasons and set out what can be done to reverse the decline.
I well remember the first time I gave blood. I went with my father to the blood donor bus on one of its visits to Keith. It was Sunday 22 June 19—whatever, one day short of my 17th birthday. As the bus came to Keith only twice a year, I was keen to donate and not wait for another six months. I was accepted despite not being 17 and the procedure was over in a short time. Meanwhile, my father's donation was turning into a bit of a struggle—they could not get the blood to run into the bag. I think he stopped donating from then on; another family member was doing their bit.
In the four years that I spent at university, I gave blood only once, when the blood transfusion service came to the university. I do not recollect giving blood while I worked in England, but I started to donate again when I worked in Aberdeen, during my lunch times. I was asked to give platelets—the hereditary clotting property that led to the painfully slow process of giving blood for my father came good in my blood donations—as part of the supply for haemophiliacs. At that time, one platelet donation was worth two normal blood donations. My donation count rose rapidly as a result: I got my bronze, silver and gold pins and silver quaich.
People have to take time out from donating following childbirth and, as Rhoda Grant said, after certain illnesses or periods on medication. I say that to highlight the everyday interruptions that can interrupt donation even for those who want to give regularly. I would like every 17-year-old to be as keen to give blood as they are to obtain a driving licence. Some sixth year pupils at Banchory Academy looked into getting together enough peers and staff to justify the donor bus visiting the school, as it does the offices of some large companies.
The donor bus is important in rural areas, where volunteers do not live near a donor centre. The rurality of Scotland is an issue. I am against payment for blood donation, but young people and students could be reimbursed the cost of the bus or train fare for attending a donor centre.
Getting people through the door for that first donation is key. If people are on the books, they can be reminded by text or phone call to make a repeat appointment in three or four months' time; once on the books, they can be cajoled into coming again or be persuaded to become platelet donors. Anyone who can give platelets should say yes. It takes longer, but donations can be made more frequently—every four to six weeks. In our busy lives, it can be a bit like time at the hairdresser; for me, it is a welcome opportunity to relax completely and read magazines that I would not normally buy or give the time of day to.
There could be more flexibility on the times of day and the days when donor centres are open or buses come to visit, and there could be more eye-catching and innovative ways of catching blood donors. In the end, it is nae sair and is certainly life giving.
I, too, congratulate Rhoda Grant on securing this important debate. Like many others who are present this evening, I have made blood donations and know how vital the service is. I encourage any company that is thinking of supporting blood donation to do so.
I saw the service in action when I worked as a welder for 17 years at Terex in Newhouse. During that time, I was able to give blood regularly because the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service came to the factory and we were all given time off from our daily routine to do so. It was then very easy—much easier than it is now—to find the time to make blood donations. I welcome the opportunity to support Rhoda Grant's call for workplace donations.
When preparing for the debate, I was shocked to learn that the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service requires 1,000 donations every day to meet demand from patients. Some patients have other needs. In October last year, my constituents Robert and Jessie Colson submitted a petition to the Parliament's Public Petitions Committee on behalf of their son Richard, who at that time needed a bone marrow transplant because he suffers from severe aplastic anaemia. Thankfully, Richard received a transplant earlier this year and is making progress back towards good health.
However, Richard's parents' petition remains under consideration. They are still calling on the Scottish Government to recognise and promote the life-saving impacts that bone marrow testing and donation can have on people who have life-threatening illnesses. For that possibility to be expanded, the Government must provide adequate funding for the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service to support bone marrow services and to encourage more donors. That can be done only by getting more blood donations.
As we know, the Scottish Government funds the SNBTS, which recently announced that it was entering into a collaboration with the Anthony Nolan Trust to improve recruitment of potential bone marrow donors. Again, that must follow additional blood donations. The criteria for joining the Anthony Nolan Trust register are similar to those used by the SNBTS, of which ScotBlood is a part. The only difference is in the age of donors. The age range for the Anthony Nolan Trust is 18 to 40, whereas that for the SNBTS is 18 to 50.
Earlier this year, ScotBlood and the Anthony Nolan Trust released a statement in which they said that they were joining forces to encourage more Scottish blood donors to join the Anthony Nolan Trust register. As was mentioned in the two previous speeches, we must find ways of encouraging people to give blood. It has been suggested that people be paid to do that. Recently, I accompanied Robert Colson to a meeting with officials from the Anthony Nolan Trust, ScotBlood and the Scottish Government, at which we learned that in Germany people who make blood donations are asked to pay to be added to the bone marrow donor register. The idea is that, having invested in getting on to the register, they will remain committed to bone marrow donation. Rather than being paid to get on to the register, people are invited to pay to do so, and the system works very effectively.
I am sure that members will be aware of ScotBlood's recent initiative, which involves asking people who give blood whether they wish to put their names forward as potential bone marrow donors. People are only asked and encouraged to join the Anthony Nolan Trust register in that initiative—there is no commitment on collection.
The Anthony Nolan Trust recruits donors at their workplaces. I know that Rhoda Grant has been championing the idea of getting more blood donations at the workplace, and the benefits are obvious. Members may be aware of the links that the trust has developed with firms such as Virgin Media, which has a facility in my constituency, and which organises similar visits to those that allowed me to give donations at my former workplace. I hope that such links can be developed over the coming months and years.
I thank Rhoda Grant for bringing the issue to Parliament today. It has allowed me to inform others of the hard work of the Colsons and of others who have done so much to develop a relationship between blood donation and bone marrow donation. I thank her for this opportunity.
I am pleased to take part in this debate, and I, too, congratulate Rhoda Grant on bringing the important issue of blood donation to the attention of Parliament.
The debate is timely. On Monday this week I was in Rhoda Grant's region, at Alness academy, where—as Rhoda has told us—the Public Petitions Committee heard a new petition on the need for attracting more blood donors. It was presented by Andrew Danet, a pupil at the academy, who was supported by his colleagues Ben Jones and Aidan MacKenzie. I undertook to bring the petition to the minister's attention during this debate, and I will go into a little more detail about it later in my speech.
The Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service has pointed out that it is important to build up the donor base in the face of potential future challenges, such as the impact of a pandemic flu or the availability of a test for variant CJD, which could significantly reduce the number of donors in the future, over and above the reduction that has occurred in the past decade.
There has been a long-standing tradition in this country that blood should be given freely by donors, whose reward is knowing that they have helped to save the lives of their fellow citizens. Their continuing generosity is acknowledged in annual donor award ceremonies, and the pleasure of giving can clearly be seen on the faces of those who receive their bronze, silver and gold awards. As the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service nears its 70th anniversary, I see no need to break that proud tradition. That approach is supported by the World Health Organization, which describes the altruistic principle of voluntary, unpaid donation as
"the cornerstone of blood safety".
Blood safety has to be paramount, of course. It is furthermore accepted that the definition of "payment" should be extended to any other incentive to give blood. That is why I have not signed Rhoda Grant's motion. It seeks to incentivise donors by encouraging employers to give staff paid time off to donate blood. That is also why the Public Petitions Committee did not agree with Andrew Danet's proposal for a scheme to pay blood donors.
I take issue with the member's interpretation of the motion. I do not believe that giving someone paid time off is an incentive; I believe that it is the removal of a barrier that might stop people from donating. The granting of paid time off to go to the doctor certainly does not incentivise me to go to the doctor, for instance.
I accept what Rhoda Grant says, but we clearly see the issue from a different point of view.
There are other ways to encourage donation, as we have seen from the success of the transfusion service's new strategy, which has resulted in the recruitment of nearly 70,000 new donors since it was launched last year.
The pupils at Alness, in preparation for presenting their petition, had looked at how some other countries attract donors. Although the petition sought payment for donors, it became obvious during our discussion that the main intention of the pupils was to raise awareness of the need for donors and of how to go about giving blood. One suggestion was for Scotland to reduce the minimum age for giving blood from 17 to 16, as it is in Northern Ireland. That could sensibly be considered. Physically, there is generally little difference between a 16-year-old and a 17-year-old, and I can think of no real drawback to reducing the qualifying age by a year. A further suggestion from Andrew Danet, of holding donor sessions in high schools, might get donors into the habit of giving blood before they leave school, and could result in a long-term commitment to blood donation.
Countries such as France and Belgium were cited as having higher-profile awareness campaigns than we do, with widespread posters and numerous television advertisements. In France, there is apparently a very effective e-mail and text alerting system, which lets people know that they can give blood at a particular place on a particular date at a particular time. There are also opportunities to donate in offices, shopping centres and schools. The SNBTS might already be considering such ideas, but if it is not doing so, I suggest that they are worthy of consideration.
I commend the pupils of Alness academy for studying practice in countries in which donation rates are higher than rates in Scotland. I cannot support proposals for financial or similar inducements to give blood, but a number of other avenues are worth exploring in the effort to increase blood donation and I hope that some of our petitioners' suggestions will be followed up.
Tonight's debate is on an issue that has resonance for many people in Scotland. I congratulate Rhoda Grant on securing the debate. I support her motion.
I declare an interest. My youngest child, Julia, was given a blood change as a newborn baby, which undeniably saved her life. Her blood, like mine, is rhesus positive, whereas my wife's blood is rhesus negative. As a result, there was a large build-up of antibodies in my daughter's blood. My wife had to be induced a month early and the antibodies had to be flushed out with donor blood. That was nearly 16 years ago, and the doctor said that it was the first time that the procedure had been carried out in the Borders.
Since then, I have given blood. I am proud to say that my blood is like my attitude to life—B positive. That will not come as a surprise to members. I cannot quite match Thomas Bradley's record on blood donation, although like him I have a motorbike, which I will use to get home tonight. I hope that I will never need a blood transfusion myself—touch wood.
I know from my own experience, from the experience of friends and family who have received transfusions and from listening to the fantastic appeals of the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service that giving blood is vital. I give blood as often as possible. It is always worth taking an hour out of one's day to give blood, whether we do it at our local hospital or through the mobile service that travels around Scotland.
I hope that employers will be proactive in allowing staff time off to donate blood, as the motion calls for, because I am sure that some people do not give blood simply because they cannot find the time to do so. The ability to take an hour off from work would encourage people to give blood, and the mobile service makes it easier than it has ever been to do so, because it tries to fit in with people's busy lives.
We have all received the e-mails that come through the Parliament's system when the mobile donation service is in Holyrood park. Such e-mails are an excellent way of reminding people to give blood if they can. I hope that other employers can do that. If there is more flexibility for staff to give blood in work hours, blood stores should increase, which is much needed. I always remind my staff that they are free to take time out to donate blood, and they do so. It is sensible that employers everywhere should play a big role in helping the SNBTS. They might need blood or a blood product one day.
I congratulate the SNBTS on the campaign that it launched last year, which I understand has recruited an extra 10,000 donors. The campaign will continue and I hope that through advertising and other ways of reaching the public the service will go on to recruit another 10,000 people. New donors are needed. As the motion says, there are 30,000 fewer donors than there were a decade ago, which is a problem not just in the Highlands but in the south of Scotland. Indeed, it is a problem throughout Scotland and the United Kingdom.
We should not exclude certain sectors of our society. Healthy gay men should not be excluded, given that testing of blood has progressed so much. I hope that the UK Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs will reconsider the position. I would be interested to hear the minister's view on that.
I offer the SNBTS whatever assistance I can give to its campaign in the South of Scotland region. It is not possible for everyone to give blood, but I assure the people who can that the experience is painless and they will even get a free cup of tea and a choccy biscuit. Giving blood is certainly worth while when we consider the benefit that it brings to people's lives—not least the life of my daughter Julia. I hope that the debate goes some way towards helping the SNBTS campaign.
I join others in congratulating Rhoda Grant on securing this members' business debate.
Blood transfusion in humans was another first for Scottish bioscience, with the early work of Leacock on animals at the veterinary school in Edinburgh followed by Blundell's work in humans about 190 years ago.
The national transfusion service, as Nanette Milne indicated, has supported patients for more than 65 years and is approaching its 70th anniversary. It has met the changing needs of patients and the NHS, faced challenges and remained at the forefront of blood transfusion, punching well above its weight in research and innovation. Despite recent concerns about HIV, new variant CJD and the screening that might be needed, and the concerns about hepatitis C, the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service has always been at the forefront of delivering the safest service.
I was involved—as I think Shona Robison was—in the Health and Community Care Committee's investigation into hepatitis C in the first session of the Parliament. I understand that there will be a further inquiry into the matter, but it was the committee's view that the transfusion service was well ahead of the other services in the United Kingdom in introducing the necessary exclusions to deal with the virus once it had been identified as hepatitis C, not simply non-A, non-B hepatitis.
The service faces and will continue to face many challenges. I have referred to some of the reasons for exclusions, but others need to be reviewed and examined. Rhoda Grant referred to medical exclusions. I have been a donor, albeit intermittently, over the years. Because I was a general practitioner partner, I could give myself paid time off work without any difficulty, but I did not always take the opportunity because of work pressures, which I regret. I believe that, now that I am taking some medication, I am excluded but, after Rhoda Grant's timely reminder, I will go back and ask whether the medication excludes me, as I hope to become a donor again.
Jim Hume referred to the exclusion on grounds of homosexuality. It is appropriate that the advisory committee should keep that under review. Given the major concerns that relate to hepatitis C and new variant CJD, the advisory committee is not particularly keen to take risks. It feels that, if something were to happen, the result would be more petitions and more demands for public inquiries, which would make life difficult. If the exclusion is lifted, it will have to be done carefully to ensure that the quality of blood is safeguarded.
We may face further exclusions in the future—we simply do not know—so campaigns to encourage young people to become involved in donating blood early on are important. The transfusion service may also need to consider going beyond its current pain relief measures. We heard Rhoda Grant's cringing tale of being awake all night the first time that she donated, and others have suggested that donating is not entirely painless. Perhaps more measures could be adopted to ensure that donors can be guaranteed a pain-free donation if that is what they want.
Michael McMahon referred to the Anthony Nolan Trust. My practice was one of the first to invite patients to come for a blood test to determine whether they might be suitable bone marrow donors, which is how the Anthony Nolan Trust started back in the 1970s. Within two years, one of my patients ended up being recalled from holiday in the Western Isles to give bone marrow. The whole community, as well as the donor, felt good about that. Community feeling about the donating experience is crucial and must not be lost.
Platelets have been mentioned. We also need to examine closely the recapture of salvaged blood. Scotland is not performing as well as England in that respect, and I hope that the minister will examine the situation. Although something is being done, health boards are not incentivised enough to manage supplies of blood cautiously. The use of blood has been improved, with substantial reductions being made, but more could be done not only to recapture salvaged blood but to encourage patients having elective operations to give blood beforehand. Their blood might not be given back to them—although that is the best way because it is the safest—but at least it would be available to others.
I recommend that we encourage progress in those two areas.
I thank Rhoda Grant for bringing an important motion to Parliament. I, too, congratulate Mr Thomas Bradley from Renfrewshire, who has been nominated for a Sunday Mail "Great Scot" unsung hero award. As Rhoda Grant said, he has donated blood 600 times in 40 years and is currently Scotland's top active donor. I think that he sets a wonderful example.
The core business of the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service is to meet the transfusion needs of patients in Scotland. In order to ensure an adequate supply of blood to the NHS, it is essential that voluntary donations be kept at a level that will allow that. People lead busy lives, so it is a constant challenge to the service to consider ways in which to transform the donation experience in order to make it more accessible and satisfying. The SNBTS strategy is to build into the blood donor base sufficient resilience to reverse the downward trend in blood donation, which Rhoda Grant identified, and to cope with the introduction of increasingly more donor exclusion criteria for safety reasons, to which Richard Simpson alluded.
Some of the actions that are being undertaken in that regard include reaching out to new donors by a combination of very good publicity campaigns and marketing, using traditional and new media; adopting new computer systems that allows the SNBTS to interact better with existing donors; reviewing the locations of existing static donor centres to ensure that they are readily accessible and visible for donors; transforming the donation process by giving donors more choice about where, when and how they can donate blood, which is an issue that members have raised during the debate; considering whether additional fixed or semi-permanent donation centres across Scotland would be beneficial; significantly improving the donation experience by, for example, streamlining the donation process to minimise queuing and making better use of modern technology, such as e-mailing donors before sessions, and data handling during sessions to speed up the process; and exploring the potential to increase the opportunity to donate in the workplace.
On the workplace, I note Rhoda Grant's wish that consideration be given by employers to giving staff paid time off to donate blood. I appreciate that her suggestion is well intentioned, but I think that we must be very cautious. We must be careful that we do not undermine the concept of voluntary donation as the main source of the safest blood supply. The World Health Organization identifies the need for blood donation to be based on the altruistic principle of voluntary unpaid donation, and describes that as
"the cornerstone of blood safety."
It is generally accepted that the definition of payment should be extended to any other incentive to give blood. The concerns that Nanette Milne outlined about giving staff paid time off are well founded. It is for that reason that any tokens of appreciation to blood donors by the SNBTS are of nominal value. The SNBTS has a proud history of voluntary donation, which will be celebrated during the service's 70th anniversary in 2010. Evidence suggests that that is the best and safest method of blood collection. That is certainly our and the SNBTS's view.
In June 2008, the service launched a new integrated marketing and communications strategy. Many members will have seen the powerful advertisements on television or heard them on radio. I think that the radio ones are sometimes the most effective—they put across a very powerful message. Recent figures from the SNBTS indicate that the strategy's impact has been very effective—it has led to an increase of 70,000 new donors and the return of over 40,000 lapsed donors. In the Highlands, more than 4,000 new donors have been recruited, with more than 3,000 returning donors. Last year in the Highland Council region, 23,714 donors attended to give blood, which was an increase of 4 per cent on the previous year.
The SNBTS is working closely with employers to encourage them to allow the SNBTS to undertake collections at or near the workplace. A number of employers are willing to shuttle staff to and from sessions at mobile centres near their location. Indeed, only recently, the mobile unit visited St Andrew's house, as it does regularly, and 63 donations were collected.
The SNBTS is working with management in the private and public sector to investigate opportunities to form partnerships and to develop new blood donating opportunities within the workplace. Although early gains are likely, the service is aware of the need for a long-term approach to donation. It recognises that, during these difficult economic times, it will need to minimise any financial impact on employers who allow the service to visit company premises. The SNBTS and I ask for employers' continued support and endorsement of blood donation.
The SNBTS is considering moving some donation centres from hospitals to city centres. The success of the Glasgow centre relocation in increasing donations shows the importance of footfall and the effect of a more convenient location. I am aware that some donor sessions in remote, rural and island communities have been discontinued over the years as attendance numbers fell below viable levels. The SNBTS is actively working with those communities to assess the possibility of organising or reintroducing such sessions in the future.
The SNBTS has done a lot of work through its energy challenge in Aberdeen, which encouraged more than 400 organisations in the energy sector to support their staff in giving blood. I am sure that similar initiatives might be adopted in other sectors. The service is also exploring options to work more flexibly with smaller donor staff teams to make collection from smaller workforces viable.
As members will be aware, the safety of the blood supply is of primary concern, so it is sometimes necessary to defer donors. That can lead to frustrations, especially when donors have waited patiently in a queue. The service is exploring options such as using e-mail or the web to provide donors with information about reasons for deferral prior to donation, so that they can self-defer, which will save their own time and reduce queuing time for others. The service is also looking at how donors might be sent their donor session records to complete at home, in order to reduce queuing. Donors might also be allowed to book in via text messaging. All those developments will be important.
We should not forget the excellent work that has been undertaken to reduce the demand for blood through SNBTS-led education initiatives, such as the effective use of blood group, the better blood transfusion programme and the blood express project, which have reduced the demand from 45 per 1,000 of the population to 38 per 1,000. On the point that Richard Simpson asked about, in our discussions on the SNBTS as part of the annual review of NHS National Services Scotland, the issue of salvaged blood was raised and we were assured that the service is considering ways of addressing that.
In the longer term, the SNBTS plans to continue to build the donor base. The service estimates that it will need approximately 194,000 blood donors to secure enough blood for patients into the future. I am aware that 95 per cent of Scotland's population do not currently donate. We also face issues such as demographic change—there will be fewer donors to meet the needs of an ageing population with increased transfusion needs—and increased safety measures as science progresses.
In the shorter term, we also face the possibility that the H1N1 virus will have an effect on the donor base. Therefore, I ask members to do all that they can within their constituencies to underpin the message from the SNBTS about encouraging volunteers to give blood. If that message comes out from tonight's debate, it will certainly have been a worthwhile debate.
Meeting closed at 17:48.