Chamber and committees

We have moved from the recommendations in Mr Feeley’s review to what the Government has consulted on. The Feeley review gave a figure of £0.66 billion as an adequate investment for its proposals. However, we now have an expanded remit, and there has been commentary from Audit Scotland on the growing requirement for care, particularly with an ageing population. How realistic is the £0.66 billion figure, and what further work needs to be done to understand it?

Given that I named Mr Feeley, I had better let him respond first.

In closing for Scottish Labour, I begin, as colleagues in the chamber have done universally, by paying tribute to carers across Scotland. Throughout the debate, we have heard powerful stories about the lives of carers in every community, in a diverse range of families and in a range of caring settings. As with all our debates on the issue, it is key that we reflect carers’ voices and that they are central to our considerations. They are real people—not abstract numbers or financial calculations.

As my colleague Pam Duncan-Glancy said in her characteristically powerful opening speech, the debate is about people who take on caring roles to enable others to live their lives to the full. We have heard about the serious challenges that carers face, which I will come on to in a moment.

We in Scottish Labour agree that the payment is needed by Scotland’s carers and should be in their bank accounts before Christmas, which is why we will back the principles of the bill at decision time. However, we have concerns, as my colleagues have outlined. We share, based on evidence from carers and carer organisations, the Social Justice and Social Security Committee’s concerns about certain aspects of the bill, as set out in its stage 1 report. In that regard, I note the contribution from the committee’s convener, Neil Gray.

Martin Whitfield said that the one-off increase is

“a sticking plaster to cover a gaping wound”,

and I think that there is something in that. Those who contributed to the committee’s report concluded that it is not sufficient to lift carers out of poverty. That is because a third of carers are struggling to pay utility bills, 47 per cent have been in debt and half are struggling to make ends meet and are cutting back on food and heating as a result. Colleagues, including Maggie Chapman, spoke about those issues and the painful decisions that have to be made. We believe that the bill must increase the supplement on a permanent basis until the new benefit—carers assistance—is introduced.

As we have heard, Carers Scotland has estimated that, every single day of the Covid pandemic, unpaid carers have saved the Scottish Government £43 million through the care that they have provided. Carers feel undervalued and forgotten about in the midst of this unprecedented situation. The Scottish Government has promised to introduce carers assistance, the new benefit that will replace carers allowance, by 2025, which means that Scotland’s unpaid carers will have to wait years.

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

I thank the minister for that clarification. I am sure that carers will welcome it and will want to engage with it fully.

Overnight, 392,000 people have become carers because of the pandemic. We are now 18 months in, and unpaid carers are exhausted and overworked, and they feel underappreciated. This afternoon, we have heard a lot about people not being able to access respite services in the normal way and feeling that they do not have the right support at the right time.

Pam Duncan-Glancy and Willie Rennie stated that although the bill provides a one-off increase and includes a power to make future payments of the supplement, further increases are not guaranteed; Pam Duncan-Glancy’s intervention to the minister showed that we do not yet have confirmation of what further increases will look like. She highlighted constraints relating to the bill, including in relation to our ability to amend it, to the time that has been allowed for scrutiny and to consultation of the wider group of carers that we all want. That is why Scottish Labour will seek to lodge amendments at stage 2, as has been outlined, and will continue to engage with carers on the issues that are important to them. I welcome Willie Rennie’s support for that.

Although the measure is positive, it is temporary, so we must look at how we more widely support carers who are stressed, burned out and feel undervalued and who are—sadly, as we have heard all too often—ignored. It has been the most unimaginable 18 months for them. Many have had little or no access to respite services, many are still battling to have day services and support packages restarted, and many feel that they simply have not had a break. Some carers have even said that the only respite that they have had is when they have been hospitalised themselves. That is completely unacceptable.

As we debate measures such as the bill, and as the Government consults on the national care service, we must hear what carers tell us will make a real and meaningful difference. Carers want a plan for how services will be reinstated to pre-pandemic levels. They want assurances that, where they exist, smaller and targeted specialist services will be protected and supported, and that where such services have closed, alternatives will be provided.

As we heard from Miles Briggs and others, young carers want to know how they will be supported to return to learning, having juggled online learning and caring responsibilities, and how they will be supported financially to return to university, college or school.

In closing, I say that although the bill is a welcome step that will put more money into the pockets of carers, there is much more to do, so Scottish Labour looks forward to working with carers to get them the right support at the right time in the right place, because that is what they deserve.

I too thank Siobhian Brown for bringing this important debate to the chamber to mark international FASD awareness day which, as we have heard, fell on 9 September. It is vital that the Parliament has an opportunity to talk about the issue, raise awareness and call for continued action to support interventions, reduce the prevalence and impact of FASD in Scotland and support those who live with it.

As colleagues have done, I thank Alcohol Focus Scotland for its informative briefing ahead of the debate and for its continued work to raise awareness and campaign for solutions.

As we have already heard, it has been estimated that around 3.2 per cent of Scotland’s young people live with FASD and, as Siobhian Brown said, when we compare that to other conditions such as autism, the figure is quite stark. A study in my region suggests that prevalence is higher than previously thought, with as many as 40 per cent of babies showing signs of exposure to alcohol in the second trimester and one in seven showing signs of exposure to high and frequent consumption.

People who have FASD are affected throughout their lives: 90 per cent experience mental health problems, 79 per cent experience unemployment, 60 per cent have disrupted school experiences, 43 per cent have their education disrupted, 35 per cent have been imprisoned as adolescents, and 23 per cent have needed in-patient psychiatric care. Life expectancy for people with FASD is tragically short, at just 34 years, with many deaths attributed to addiction, misadventure or suicide.

Those stark figures point to the need for renewed action. It is incumbent on us all to act, for example, on the calls by Alcohol Focus Scotland and other bodies to move to a mandatory system of labelling on alcohol, which Meghan Gallacher alluded to in her remarks. Those warnings have to be clear, because 28 per cent—over a quarter—of women in the UK are unaware of the current health advice from chief medical officers that no amount of alcohol is safe to consume during pregnancy. More must be done to compel alcohol companies to label products appropriately, so that the risks are made clear by health information and advice at the point of purchase.

It is important that we do not demonise women or stigmatise FASD, as Kaukab Stewart alluded to. Interventions such as labelling must sit alongside better community support and education, particularly during pregnancy. We know the difference that a strong, supportive relationship with a trusted professional can make, and I acknowledge the work of GPs, nurses, midwives and social workers in this area. I hope that the minister will pick up on some of those areas in closing.

As I draw my remarks to a close, I would like to call for better support for those who are living with FASD, particularly those who are young and care-experienced, because we know the challenges that are experienced particularly by that group. If we seek to keep the promise, which we all want to do, we must deliver.

Adoption UK, through its FASD hub in Scotland, has made clear the need to improve diagnosis and support, sitting alongside work on prevention. It calls for a published, FASD-specific strategy that covers awareness raising; diagnosis and support services; and individual plans and lifelong support for all children who are diagnosed with FASD, which address home life, education, mental health and access-to-work support and resources. It also calls for individuals who have a diagnosis of FASD to be given a multidisciplinary support plan that acknowledges their needs and those of their parents, carers and wider family, and includes access to relevant and required support services.

We must continue to raise awareness of FASD and do all that we can to support prevention, diagnosis and support, in order to save and improve life.

To ask the Scottish Government what steps will be taken over the current parliamentary session to deliver crofting reform. (S6O-00187)

I thank the cabinet secretary for her answer and note her previous answer to Donald Cameron. The Scottish Crofting Federation has expressed bitter disappointment that the crofting reform bill has not been included in the programme for government. Donald MacKinnon, the chair of the federation, described it as “galling” that neither the bill nor any actions specific to crofting were included in the programme. The working group on the bill, which is the voice of crofters and communities, was disbanded when the Government abandoned the process. Will the minister clarify the Government’s position on the progress of the bill and will she reconvene the group as soon as possible in order to explain her decisions to stakeholders and to re-engage on these important issues?

Will the member take an intervention?

The member acknowledges, I think, the scale of the crisis and the issues that existed before the pandemic. He made a point about ice, but would he accept that cutting local government funding and budgets contributes to our wider problems in the health service, and that it has a knock-on effect? We have to fund local government properly if it is to deliver services.

Certainly. As Gillian Mackay said, we need to ensure that we have better support for staff who are working on the front line. The reality is that we must put staff and patients first. They deserve better. I support the motion in Jackie Baillie’s name.