Chamber and committees

I do have a suggestion—thank you, convener.

I will mention two things. First, you said earlier that you would take the First Minister a list of petitions that the committee feels are very important. I ask whether PE2017 could be included in that list.

Secondly, I asked representatives of NHS Grampian, at their most recent meeting with us, if it could consider ensuring that design for the purposes discussed could be included in its architects’ drawings when the new hospital goes ahead and is built. If that could be included, that would be welcome.

Good morning. I thank the committee for its consideration of the petition.

I have been deeply moved by Maggie Reid’s campaign to improve perinatal mental health services in Scotland. The campaign began because of the horrendous experience of her sister, Lesley. Maggie and Lesley could not make it today, but they are watching, and this is what they wanted to say to you.

Lesley wants you to know:

“Having been admitted to both a MBU and an adult mental health unit, in my experience the environments and care are miles apart. From what I experienced the adult mental health unit was a horrible environment for someone with my condition. I was one of 2 females on a male dominant ward which made for intimidating and difficult conditions.

Although I can understand why I was ‘locked up’ and separated from my family, in the MBU the environment was softer and I had a focus as I had my baby with me.”

This is from Lesley’s sister, Maggie, who submitted the petition:

“After experiencing Lesley’s terrible care when she was sectioned it made me want to make a change so that it did not happen to anyone else.

It disappoints me and frustrates me how little the government has done to support the petition I put in. I keep asking myself the same question how many more women need to become so unwell that they need the system which fails them or how many more sadly die from being so ill. It is all over the newspaper just now regarding women’s mental health and suicides”

so

“why are you not acting faster”?

To date, we have heard warm words from the Scottish Government about establishing a mother and baby unit in the north-east, but national health service building projects have now been put on hold for up to two years.

A key message from organisations such as the Maternal Mental Health Alliance is that the changes are so desperately needed. Suicide is the leading cause of death for new mothers. One in four mothers develop a mental health issue as a result of pregnancy or childbirth, and many of those women are being failed every day, with a postcode lottery in service provision.

I urge the committee, on behalf of Lesley and her sister Maggie, to hold the Scottish Government to account on those issues and to help Maggie to secure the urgent change that she is hoping for.

We will talk later about uprating. Public Health Scotland agrees that the data was based on modelling, rather than actual statistics.

MUP is a blunt instrument to tackle a very complex problem, and the Public Health Scotland evaluation is riddled with holes. Alcohol-specific deaths are at their highest since 2008. Moderate drinkers are being penalised and will be penalised even more by the price increase. Other approaches in treatment of alcohol addiction are underfunded and underresourced.

The Public Health Scotland evaluation of MUP is riddled with holes, as are the Scottish Government’s conclusions about its effectiveness. That is not my view; the Law Society of Scotland said:

“In our view, the study does not provide enough evidence that the introduction of MUP ‘saved lives’”,

and other stakeholders in the Scottish Government’s consultation described the evaluation as

“selective, biased, misleading or flawed”.

In your opinion, and ahead of the expiry of the sunset clause, how does that square with the robust evaluation that former health secretary Nicola Sturgeon promised during the parliamentary passage of the bill in 2012?

Minister, I have a question about uprating, but I would like to go back to harmful drinking. If you remember, the bill’s financial memorandum emphasised that minimum pricing would

“reduce the consumption of alcohol by harmful drinkers”.

However, if we look at the facts, we see a 25 per cent increase in the number of alcohol-related deaths over the past three years alone and, over the past 10 years, the number of people accessing alcohol treatment services has gone down by 40 per cent. Do you agree that harmful and hazardous drinkers are the ones who need the greatest help?

Earlier, you said that the MUP will impact all drinkers. However, it will hit social drinkers, in particular, in their shopping basket. Rather than the MUP targeting harmful drinking, it will hit everybody in the social drinker group.

Do you recognise that there are massively differing opinions on the issue? Many people think that, rather than being a silver bullet, MUP is a blunt instrument with massive holes in it.

You are confirming that that was modelling, not statistics.

I will go back to the uprating question. Minister, you talked about whether we might use RPI or CPI in the future. Do you intend to come back to Parliament when there is a review so that there can be a robust analysis that is based on facts, not modelling?

Let me check that, minister. You are open-minded about coming back to the committee, hopefully when you have some facts rather than models, which would be a good opportunity to come and have another review and to discuss and debate the policy.