Official Report 506KB pdf
11:00
Agenda item 2 is the consideration of new petitions. These are the last new petitions that we will be considering. Given where we are in the parliamentary session there is, sadly, little opportunity for us to do much at all in respect of them.
Healthcare (Rural Communities) (PE2210)
PE2210, which was lodged by Nora Fry, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve access to local healthcare in rural communities by ensuring that general practitioner practices resume inclusive emergency care pathways at all hours; ensure on-call doctors are available in GP practices and emergency clinics, including after hours; remove telephone triaging, telephone appointments and remote diagnosing; and prohibit GP receptionists from requesting private health information or redirecting patients to other disciplines.
The Scottish Parliament information centre briefing explains that, since the 2018 GP contract, GPs have been expected to become less involved in more routine tasks, with those tasks being delivered by other health professionals in the wider primary care multidisciplinary team. The 2018 contract also highlighted opportunities to develop the skills of practice receptionists to support patients with information on a range of primary care multidisciplinary team services that are available.
The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that modern general practice is based on services provided by a range of disciplines, which means that GP receptionists need to be able to signpost patients to the right clinician, which in turn means asking patients for some information. It further states that the obligation to provide out-of-hours services was removed from the GP contract in 2004 for most GP practices. The submission states that the Scottish Government does not believe that the profession would support any revision to its contracts for a proportionate cost and that any such revision would endanger progress towards recruiting more GPs. The response states that the Scottish Government is not taking action to return out-of-hours services to general practitioner delivery, nor to make all GP appointments in person.
The petitioner has provided a written submission, in which she states that GP receptionists are not qualified to triage or determine whether a patient’s circumstance is urgent. She points out that there may be situations where a patient holds back on vital information because that person only wishes the doctor to know. On the issue of access to emergency care, the submission highlights an example in which a patient tried to access care at a local hospital but was advised by the nurse in charge that it did not deal with emergency cases. The receptionist at the individual’s local practice then advised her to call an ambulance. The petitioner expresses her view that people in rural areas are greatly disadvantaged in healthcare settings. She states that, as people age, they will experience health issues and should have access to on-call duty doctors to help when an emergency occurs.
Do colleagues have any suggestions as to how we might proceed?
The petition’s asks are not achievable. I sit on the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, and we have seen the vital role that technology has played in rural areas to enable people to communicate and to be diagnosed over great distances, and we will never change the GP contracts.
In the light of that, I wonder whether we could consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that, in 2004, the obligation to provide out-of-hours services was removed from the GP contracts for most GP practices; that the Scottish Government does not believe that the profession would support any revision to its contract that would introduce out-of-hours requirements and considers that any such revision would endanger progress towards recruiting more GPs; that the Scottish Government is not taking action to return out-of-hours services to general practitioners of delivery or to make all GP appointments in person; that modern general practice is based on the services provided by a range of disciplines, which means that a GP receptionist needs to be able to signpost patients to the right clinician, which in turn means asking patients for some information; and that the committee has no further time within this parliamentary session to progress the issues that were raised in the petition.
Are colleagues content for us to take Mr Torrance’s proposal as our position?
I am. I do not think that we can do justice to the numerous issues that Nora Fry raises. She gives a long and interesting account of particular problems that have arisen, all of which have the ring of truth about them—I say that as an MSP who represents a rural area as well as the city of Inverness. There are many frustrations in rural Scotland about the availability of services; the centralisation of services; and, particularly in the Highlands, the GP contract, not least its removal of the obligation to deliver some vaccinations, which led to a botch-up and the death of an infant because her mother did not get the notice of a whooping cough vaccination. That is just one illustration. On the other hand, the days of GPs like Dr Finlay providing out-of-hours service are probably long past. However, more services should be provided locally, and it is less expensive do so.
Raigmore hospital has a huge problem with delayed discharge. Senior citizens may remain in hospital for weeks or months because there is not sufficient care in the community or capacity in residential establishments. I do not know whether that problem is pervasive throughout Scotland, but it underlies many of the pressures at Raigmore. Occasionally, people suffer hugely, sitting in ambulances and waiting for a bed that is not available.
To be fair to the petitioner, from her experience as a nurse over a long period she raises some important issues for rural Scotland. Although I agree with Mr Torrance that we cannot pursue the matter further, I am sure that it will come back to us again.
I would have thought that the Parliament ought to seek to explore that more generally in the Health and Social Care Committee.
I agree with all the comments that have been made. By way of advice to the petitioner on lodging a new petition, I say that, like colleagues, I have experienced broadly the same complaints from constituents, but I gently point out that remote diagnosing, for example, can be extremely beneficial in rural communities. Indeed, pioneering work is going on at the University of Dundee that will allow remote surgeries where the technology is apparent. That is wonderful for rural communities.
There is a lot in the petition and if the petitioner is considering lodging a new one, perhaps there should be some consideration of what asks are reasonable and could be pursued by the new committee in the next session.
In light of that, are we content to support Mr Torrance’s proposal, with the notes that have been suggested?
Members indicated agreement.
Covid Vaccines (Eligibility) (PE2211)
That brings us to the final new petition for consideration in the 2021 to 2026 session: PE2211, on following the science and broadening eligibility for Covid vaccines. It is not only the final new petition of the session; by definition, it is the final new petition for consideration today. Lodged by Peter Barlow, it calls on the Scottish Parliament to recognise the flaws in the guidance of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation and to broaden eligibility for updated Covid vaccines, including Novavax, to include those who are at moderate or high risk.
The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that its decision making on all Covid-19 vaccination matters continues to be guided by the independent clinical advice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, which follows rigorous consideration of risks and benefits for different population groups.
The JCVI’s advice notes that the vaccines’ ability to prevent transmission is now expected to be extremely limited. As a result, in the current phase of the pandemic, the indirect benefits of vaccinating one group to reduce severe disease in others are significantly reduced.
The submission notes that the JCVI considered a range of evidence when advising who should be offered a winter 2025 vaccination dose. Public Health Scotland’s monitoring found in November 2025 that Covid-19 case rates remained at baseline levels overall.
On the question of making the Novavax vaccine available, although it remains the Scottish Government’s policy position that non-mRNA Covid-19 vaccines must be made available, no non-mRNA products were authorised for use in the UK at the time of writing. The submission notes that the Scottish vaccination and immunisation programme is keeping that under review, to see whether supply becomes available at a later date.
The petitioner has provided a written response in which he emphasises that it is misleading to describe Covid as endemic, as that wrongly implies that the pandemic stage is over. His view is that that false impression seeks to justify a reduction in precautions such as vaccination.
The submission notes feedback from people who currently take precautions, such as immunocompromised people and carers, who want sensible mitigations to be reintroduced so that they can lead more active lives without being threatened with illness or disability. The submission calls for vaccination to be combined with other layers of protection such as mask wearing and good air quality. The petitioner states that we should be following the well-established science on airborne infections.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action? We will close where we started—with Covid.
You are right, convener.
In the light of the written evidence, the committee should consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government has set its key objectives and eligibility criteria for the Scottish 2025-26 flu and Covid-19 vaccination programme, based on JCVI advice, and has not indicated that it intends to deviate from that advice. The committee has no further time remaining in this parliamentary session to progress the issues that are raised in the petition.
Are colleagues content to follow that recommendation?
Members indicated agreement.
We therefore close that petition.
That brings us to the conclusion of the formal part of this morning’s business. I would be grateful if colleagues stayed for just a few minutes longer.
Meeting closed at 11:10.
Previous
Continued Petitions