Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023
Official Report 585KB pdf
Contents
New Petitions
Item 4 is consideration of new petitions. [Interruption.]
We are expecting Paul Sweeney and Mark Ruskell to join us. Mark is here. Are you going to speak long enough for Mr Sweeney to get here, Mr Ruskell, or should we take another petition first? I think that Mr Sweeney wants to speak to the next one, too, so I could race on and see where I get to. Therefore, we would consider petition 2030, which is to review cultural funding arrangements to enable Scotland to contribute to the—[Interruption.]
Ah. We do not need to do that.
Gentlemen—if you would like to take your seats, we will deal with item 4. Before we consider the new petitions, I say to anybody who has lodged a petition and is watching, and to anybody who is just following our proceedings, that before we consider a petition we invite the Scottish Government and the impartial research service within the Scottish Parliament—the Scottish Parliament information centre—to offer comment to colleagues on the committee so that we have the background, as we consider any new petition.
Concessionary Bus Travel Scheme (Asylum Seekers) (PE2028)
Our first new petition this morning, PE2028, has been lodged by Pinar Aksu on behalf of Maryhill Integration Network and Doaa Abuamer on behalf of the Voices Network. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to extend the current concessionary travel scheme to include all people who are seeking asylum in Scotland, regardless of their age.
We are joined in our consideration of PE2028 by our MSP colleagues Paul Sweeney and Mark Ruskell. Mr Sweeney is a veteran of our proceedings, of course, and I believe that Mr Ruskell has also been with us to consider petitions previously. I wish a very warm welcome to you both.
The petitioners highlight the challenging financial circumstances that asylum seekers face, and suggest that extending the concessionary bus travel scheme would support asylum seekers, as a group, becoming much more integrated in our communities.
As the SPICe briefing notes, people who seek asylum in the UK are usually ineligible for most welfare benefits. They have, to use the term that many of us are familiar with, “no recourse to public funds”. However, the Scottish national concessionary travel schemes are not listed by the UK Government as benefits that rely on public funds, which means that some asylum seekers can already benefit from free bus and coach travel.
Scottish Government officials estimate that around one third of people who are seeking asylum in Scotland are already eligible for concessionary bus travel under the existing schemes—that is, people who are under 22, are over 60 or are disabled. The Scottish Government response has also provided information about a pilot to provide travel support to asylum seekers in Glasgow, which ran from January to July this year.
We have also received a submission from the petitioners drawing our attention to pilots that have taken place in Aberdeen and Falkirk, and encouraging the Scottish Government and Transport Scotland to continue to engage constructively on the matter.
Before I ask colleagues how we might proceed in relation to PE2028, I invite both of our visiting colleagues to speak. Mr Ruskell, would you like to offer a contribution?
Thanks very much for giving me the opportunity to speak to PE2028. It is on an issue that I have been aware of for a number of years. Having talked to people who are in the asylum system about the daily pressures that they face, the poverty that they have to endure, the lack of opportunity and the constriction of their everyday lives, I feel that such provision is the minimum that we can do to support them.
The committee will be aware that the amount of money that asylum seekers have to live on is very low—I think that it is around £5 a day, and if they are living in hotel accommodation it is around £1 a day. I cannot imagine how hard it would be to live on that amount of money. It feels to me as though it is an absolute impossibility.
The other side of the matter is that I have seen just how transformative the under-22s concessionary travel has been for young people—how it has opened up opportunities, how it has helped people to build relationships, to save money, to access jobs and employment, and just to go about their everyday lives and to have that kind of freedom.
I know that people who are in the asylum system do not have a lot of those freedoms as a right, but they are basic freedoms—just to get about and to participate in society, to see their friends, colleagues and others and to engage in the community. Their situation is hugely restricted, so just having free bus travel would make a massive difference.
The evaluations that the convener mentioned of the very limited pilots in Aberdeen and Wales—we are still waiting to hear about the pilot in Glasgow—will show the value of the policy. It feels to me that it would be a natural extension to the Government’s existing concessionary travel schemes—for over-60s, under-22s and people with a disability—to include this category of people.
I have to say that I am really at a loss as to why the provision has not already been introduced. The information that the committee has received in the SPICe briefing is quite clear that such schemes are not included in the category of benefits for which people with no recourse to public funds are ineligible, so that really begs the question whether there is another reason. Is there another legal interpretation that the Government has heard that is making it cautious? Are there complexities with extending the existing card-based concessionary travel scheme to people who are in the asylum system? Are there other issues about identification or other issues around budget? I genuinely do not know. I do not think we have had a clear answer from recent transport ministers. We have had four transport ministers in the past two years, so there is a question there, as well.
10:00I am concerned that the issue is falling between different ministerial responsibilities. I am concerned that we do not have from the Government a clear view on the reason why the provision cannot be introduced, but I think that the case for it remains. It would be a great service for the committee to get under the bonnet of the issue to understand why it has not been introduced. On the face of it, such provision would be in line with the environment that the Scottish Government is trying to create, which is a welcoming environment for people in the asylum system as their claims are being processed. I do not understand why the scheme has not been extended.
At the end of the day we are talking about small numbers of people—fewer than 6,000—so, again, I do not understand, if there is not a budget reason, why the support has not been extended already.
Thank you very much. I know that you are not here to give evidence, but I was going to ask a question about the number of people who might be involved, and you have answered it. I think that you have quantified that at around 6,000.
I suppose that the other potential reason, which you did not volunteer, is that this request has been blended in with other requests for extension to the scheme and, therefore, rather than moving on any, the Government moves on none, in case it is then used as the basis for an argument in another area of extension. I am not arguing that that would be the right thing to do, but I wonder whether that is also in the minds of people who have not taken this issue forward.
That is an excellent point. The way in which the concessionary travel scheme has been established is that there is an evidence test for extensions of the scheme, with certain conditions that have to be met and certain qualities of evidence that need to be submitted. That would get into the guts of the reasons why why the scheme has not been extended up to now.
The Government is currently engaged in a fair fares review that is looking at concessionary travel and fares across all public transport. I understand from the transport minister, who gave evidence to the Net Zero, Environment and Transport Committee this week, that that will be concluding next year.
Clearly, there are demands for the extension of concessionary travel—for example from people in island communities and from people who need companions to join them if they have a sight issue—but it would be useful to understand the context of how Government is looking at the extension of concessionary travel. In particular, zeroing in on why it has taken so long for the Government to come to a considered view and how this fits with a fair fares review would be a good place to go in terms of questioning and scrutiny.
It is a pleasure to be back in the committee and I am just here to commend and echo what my colleague Mr Ruskell said in this petition to you.
The genesis of the petition came from discussions with people seeking asylum in Glasgow over a number of years about some of the practical challenges that they face living in the city, particularly in the wake of the pandemic. There was a particularly harrowing anecdote that one of the gentlemen related about having an abscess in his gum. He had to get emergency dental treatment, but he could not afford the bus fare into town, so he had to walk 10 miles in the pouring rain in severe pain to go to get emergency dental treatment, because of his financial position as an asylum seeker. That struck me as a quite shocking scenario in a country such as ours. That moved me to ask them what would practically help make a difference and that is where the idea of extending the concessionary travel scheme came from, which subsequently led to a launch of our campaign in December 2021, in conjunction with the VOICES network and the Maryhill Integration Network.
The campaign has since attracted widespread support from across the asylum sector and continues to be championed by third sector colleagues, including those from Maryhill Integration Network, the Scottish Refugee Council, Friends of Scottish Settlers, JustRight Scotland and Grampian Regional Equality Council. People seeking asylum do not have the right to work—that is the critical issue—and they instead rely on a financial allowance from the Home Office to cover the basic costs of living. That allowance is not inflation proofed and amounts to around £6 per day, and for those living in hotel accommodation, which is an increasing number, it can be as little as £1.36 a day, so they have very limited freedom to move and undertake any real life.
In Glasgow, the cost of an all-day bus ticket is £5. In effect, that means that not just recreational activity or social activity but travel to essential medical, social, legal or Home Office appointments, which often come at short notice, is simply not an option for many people seeking asylum in Glasgow and elsewhere in Scotland, unless they forgo food or other essentials, which has severe impacts. I have had testimony from mothers caring for young children, for example, who have gone without food to make sure that their child got basic nutrition because they had to attend a Home Office appointment under threat of deportation. There are severe psychological implications there as well.
Due to the cost pressures, asylum accommodation is often situated in isolated, peripheral parts of the city and an unaffordable public transport system, which does not function, is ultimately compounding that isolation for many people seeking asylum in Scotland today.
Free bus travel is one relatively small practical intervention that we could make that would allow people to integrate, explore their new surroundings, their new communities and their new country, and I have been proud to amplify this proposal in partnership with constituents and colleagues in the third sector.
I have mentioned previously some of the organisations working with people seeking asylum that have spearheaded this campaign since its launch in 2021, but it is important also to reference that this policy has support from across civil society. Indeed, all faith leaders in the Scottish religious leaders forum have signed an open letter in support of the proposal, and it has also been recommended by the Mental Health Foundation Scotland and the Poverty Alliance.
From a parliamentary perspective, it has been fantastic to work with cross-party colleagues such as Mr Ruskell and Mr Doris, the MSP for Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn, to engage with the Scottish Government on this ask, both in writing and in meetings with successive transport ministers and Transport Scotland.
I have also met Shona Robison MSP in her previous role as Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Housing and Local Government and Neil Gray MSP in his previous role as Minister for Culture, Europe and International Development with special responsibility for refugees, both of whom saw merit in the proposals and undertook to explore them further. To that end, in the programme for government 2022-23 the Government committed to work with third sector partners and councils across Scotland to consider how best to provide free bus travel for people seeking asylum. Since then, a pilot has been run in Glasgow, but there has not really been any further update or any mention of further work or extrapolation of that pilot in this year’s programme for government. That is extremely disappointing to those of us who have worked on this project for almost two years.
To that end, I encourage colleagues on the committee to keep the petition open and to invite witnesses who are affected by this—those personally seeking asylum—to speak to the impact that this policy would have on their lives and their current situations. That could inform future correspondence from the committee to the Government regarding this proposal and perhaps create greater impetus to move forward with it. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, Mr Sweeney. Did you recognise the 6,000 figure? Did that seem familiar to you?
The number of people seeking asylum in the country at any one time varies, but it is broadly around 6,000. We have done some rough cost estimates and there is a very marginal cost to the public, given the wider benefits that this proposal would realise for people’s wellbeing, social interaction and so on. It is a very small percentage of the cost of the existing concessionary travel scheme. It is quite a marginal increase in the overall provision. I think that the Government mentioned in its correspondence that around a third of people seeking asylum currently would qualify under the existing schemes for young people, disabled people and over-60s, so we are really just filling in that gap of people of working age.
I think that this is an important petition that has quite a specific and deliverable ask. Do colleagues have any thoughts, having heard from Mr Ruskell and Mr Sweeney?
I would say that we should get third sector organisations involved as well, because a lot of people do not have direct access to the Scottish Refugee Council. We should get the third sector and other communities involved.
Who specifically might we contact?
The smaller organisations. In Edinburgh, you have the Council of Ethnic Minority Voluntary Sector Organisations—Scotland.
The starting point might be to write to the Scottish Government in order to understand its assessment of this proposal, the associated costs and the numbers involved—that is probably important, although we have heard estimates today. We should ask for an update on the options that it is exploring on this issue. Thereafter, it might be worth considering whether further evidence is required in writing or in person.
We might also ask specifically the Scottish Government where the pilots have managed to get to and what the outcome was.
Are they any other organisations that we could write to in relation to all of this, or do we we want to hear from the Government in the first instance? I think that there is merit in hearing from the Scottish Refugee Council and the Refugee Survival Trust.
I am minded that the Scottish Parliament’s Conveners Group will be putting questions to the First Minister directly next week, and I wonder whether this might not be an issue on which I, on behalf of the petitioner, could put questions directly to the First Minister. That is something that we might consider, because the question session with the First Minister next week is on the programme for government. From everything that I have heard, I think that this fits in quite nicely with that, and it might be an opportunity to highlight the work of Mr Sweeney and Mr Ruskell as well.
The nice thing about the Conveners Group when you are convener of the petitions committee is that you are not raising something on behalf of any political party but are raising it on behalf of the petitioner. It would be an opportunity for the petition concerned to be put directly to the First Minister. It seems like something that might give the petition a little bit of impetus.
We will keep the petition open. We may take evidence subsequently, but let us see what progress we can make in the first instance. There seems to have been a measure of good will towards the proposal, but it seems from what Mr Ruskell said that, having got so far, it has then got into a basket of things where nothing then makes further progress.
What we are looking for is an extension under a statutory instrument to the existing concessionary travel scheme. That would be the simplest and neatest solution. Certainly, rough and ready cost estimates suggest that it would cost around £500,000 per annum, so we are not talking about a substantial sum of money in the grand scheme of the Scottish Government’s fiscal position. There is plenty of headroom to deliver this policy, but it has perhaps been confused with some of the pilots being done through third sector partners. Maybe the cleanest and neatest solution is to simply go with the statutory instrument.
Thank you very much. I think that we are content.
Members indicated agreement.
Clydeport (Public Ownership) (PE2029)
The next petition, PE2029, on nationalising Clydeport, to bring the ports and harbours on the River Clyde into public ownership, was lodged by Robert Buirds on behalf of the campaign to save Inchgreen dry dock. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to use powers under the Harbours Act 1964 and the Marine Navigation Act 2013 to revoke the status of Peel Ports Group’s Clydeport Operations Limited as the harbour authority for the River Clyde and its estuary; to establish a municipal port authority in Clydeport’s place and bring the strategic network of ports and harbours along the River Clyde into public ownership; and to compulsorily purchase Inchgreen dry dock for the benefit of the Inverclyde community.
As background to the petition, the petitioner has raised concerns about ships breaking away from their moorings at Clydeport-managed ports and the future of Inchgreen dry dock in Greenock. The SPICe briefing notes that the Harbours Act 1964 allows the Scottish ministers to make an order that relieves a harbour authority of its statutory powers, but only if the harbour authority applies for the order or consents to its being made, or if ministers have consulted with the authority and are satisfied that it is unlikely to object.
In responding to the petition, the Scottish Government has noted that
“Scottish ports operate in a commercial environment usually with no direct public funding”.
The response goes on to argue:
“The activities Clydeport facilitates, the employment which it provides for, and the investment made in recent years, are of significant importance to the Scottish economy.”
The Scottish Government has stated that it
“has no plans to explore compulsorily purchasing, revoking the powers of, or nationalising Clydeport.”
The petitioner has also provided a submission with further details about the campaign’s concerns surrounding the regeneration of Inchgreen dry dock as well as concerns about the delays to the Adrossan harbour project.
10:15Our MSP colleague Katy Clark had hoped to join us for the consideration of the petition but, unfortunately, she has been unable to do so. However, she has provided a written submission that details various concerns that her constituents have raised about Clydeport’s management of ports and harbours along the Ayrshire coast.
Paul Sweeney MSP, who has an interest in the petition, is staying with us following our consideration of the concessionary petition that we have just heard about. Before we as a committee have a think about the petition and consider comments or options, I invite Mr Sweeney to contribute.
Thank you, convener.
I have a personal interest in the petition. I have a background in the shipbuilding industry on the Clyde, working for BAE Systems, and I have maintained a long-standing interest in the development of the Clyde corridor as an industrial asset for the wider city region.
I have had long-standing concerns about the port’s general long-term decline as a major port. That stems from ambitious plans that were launched around 20 years ago to develop Hunterston and Greenock as one of the major transatlantic trans-shipment terminals for containers coming across the Atlantic. At that time, huge investment was planned. Clydeport plc then merged with, or was purchased by, Peel Ports Group, which also owns the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company and has a major interest in the Mersey. That is another competing port on the west coast of Britain. Subsequently, huge investment—in the order of billions of pounds—has gone into developing the Liverpool 1 container terminal, and the focus of Peel Ports Group’s operations as a port authority has very much been on the Mersey at the expense of the Clyde.
There is a general, long-standing concern that the Clyde has been in a pattern of managed decline and disinvestment over many years and that the focus has been very much on Merseyside, to the extent that, if people want pilotage on the River Clyde, they call a call centre on the Mersey to get access to it. The situation seems to me to be unacceptable on a number of fronts.
Perhaps there are some parallels with previous inquiries into the management of airports in Scotland. There was an issue with one company managing both Glasgow airport and Edinburgh airport, and having a conflict of interest in that regard. There has not been any serious inquiry into, or study of, the potential long-term economic effects on the west of Scotland and the greater Glasgow city regions.
There is, of course, a container terminal in Greenock, but it does not even feature in the top 10 British ports any more. It has been in decline for a long time. At one time, it was the fifth-biggest container port in the UK, but it no longer appears in the top 100 ports in Europe, for example. There is a major long-term concern.
There is a high correlation between the level of freight traffic that comes through ports and levels of economic growth, so there is a yoke on the west of Scotland’s potential. We have recently seen the publication of population statistics and that the west of Scotland is in long-term decline. There is a broader issue that the Government really needs to pay more attention to. We need to have a serious ports policy and a policy for growing freight traffic through Scotland, ship movements and associated industries, such as the ship repair industry. To that end, the petitioner has made some serious and valid points.
We should be guided by measurable outputs. What is the goal to grow the Clyde? What is the goal to develop and invest in the Clyde and its operations? That is not clear at this point in time. There have been stop-start projects associated with Inchgreen dry dock, which is the biggest mainland dry dock in Great Britain. We should contrast that with what has happened in Belfast, where there has been massive investment in the former Harland & Wolff shipyard site. Nothing corresponding is happening on the Clyde. I have concerns on a number of fronts.
In a more parochial sense, the upper Clyde is, in effect, not dredged any more beyond the Govan shipyard site and at Braehead, where the King George V dock sits. That is a major concern, because there is a real dearth of recreational traffic on the upper Clyde. Anyone who is familiar with Clydeside around Glasgow will know that not many boats go there. That is in contrast with Merseyside, for example, which teems with marinas, wharfage and lots of recreational craft. If Glasgow had a marina at Pacific Quay, that would be a huge boon for the city. It would generate millions of pounds of revenue. No attention is being applied to that.
It is quite extraordinary that, in the early 1990s, a private bill was passed that effectively gave quasi-legislative control to a private enterprise, to manage 450 square miles of riverine land in the west of Scotland, with huge legal privileges and byelaws, including the management of the riverbed itself. The obligations that that enterprise has in legislation to maintain a navigable channel as far as the tidal wharf at Glasgow Green have not been adhered to for many years. That has starved, damaged and stymied the Clyde’s potential from central Glasgow all the way down to the estuary. That merits a broader inquiry. Frankly, I am not impressed by the Government’s blasé brush-off in its response to the committee and the petition.
Thank you very much, Mr Sweeney.
I hesitate to invite colleagues to consider matters at all, because Mr Sweeney’s knowledge is fairly comprehensive. Do you have any suggestions about what the committee might consider doing, Mr Sweeney?
The issue has been raised in the House of Commons and the Scottish Parliament over the years, but it has not had any serious focus. That has been most frustrating, and a number of parliamentarians across parties have expressed concern about that.
The creation of a space to look at the issue in greater depth would be fantastic, and this committee has a good opportunity to free that space for wider consideration. Stakeholders up and down the Clyde could be considered. I know that colleagues have suggested some stakeholder groups in the estuary and the Firth of Clyde area. Perhaps it would be helpful to consider submissions from the greater Glasgow city region councils and major industrial companies on the Clyde, such as BAE Systems and the Malin Group, which are looking to develop infrastructure on the Clyde, as well as Ferguson Marine and other parties that have industrial operations on the Clyde.
It might also be worth speaking to Maritime UK and other trade bodies that look at port development, to get some analysis of the longer-term growth of the Clyde as a port relative to competitor ports in the UK, and to start to establish a base of evidence on what is going on.
It would also be good if Peel Ports Group responded. It is important that it justifies its position and sets out its plans for investment on the Clyde. No one is against the group per se; what we are concerned about is the lack of clear operational ambition for the Clyde as an asset. I think that, if the group were to rise to that challenge, people would be more relaxed about its stewardship of the river.
I am very grateful for your experience, passion and comprehensive range of suggestions, Mr Sweeney. Colleagues, I am very happy to embrace all of Mr Sweeney’s suggestions. Are there any others that you might wish to add?
The committee needs to be clear that we are conflating two separate asks here. One ask is in relation to what we have heard this morning about the future of the Clyde. The other—which is what I believe the petition focuses on—is about a change of ownership with regard to the future of the Clyde. I think that we just need to be clear that one does not necessarily link to the other—but it could. Our focus needs to be on the latter point, although it would be useful to have a fully informed opinion on the future of the Clyde from interested parties.
With that in mind, it might be useful to write to the Scottish Government regarding both aspects: the future of the Clyde and the ownership issue. In particular, I refer to Katy Clark’s submission, which says that the former transport minister Jenny Gilruth
“acknowledged that the private ownership of harbours ‘can substantially slow progress in relation to improvements and it also comes at a cost to the public purse.’”
If that is, indeed, Scottish Government policy, it strikes me that that would lead one to a conclusion that the petition should be warmly welcomed. However, it is important to clarify that with the Scottish Government.
In addition, it is worth while writing to the British Ports Association, the UK Chamber of Shipping, Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd, CalMac Ferries, Inverclyde Council, North Ayrshire Council and Glasgow City Council.
Those were some of the suggestions, along with others, that Mr Sweeney made.
Yes, I do think that the petition opens up issues about which I knew very little, I have to say. Despite being born, raised and someone who has lived in and around the city of Glasgow—through which the Clyde is the dominant feature—all my life, I have not really given any recent thought to the issues that are raised in the petition or, indeed, to the issues that Paul Sweeney has discussed in some detail.
From time to time over the decades, I have wondered about the lack of any transformation. I used to come home from school when there were still wharf buildings all the way into the city centre along the Clyde and things were happening in them. They were all done away with, and then we had river taxis for all of five minutes, which did not amount to very much. After that, I seem to remember a seaplane would fly to Oban from somewhere along the river.
Compared to other major cities that you visit where the river is still a teeming lifeline through the city, the Clyde sits rather dormant and apart from city life. Some of the issues that the petitioner and Mr Sweeney raise might underpin some of the lethargy that is associated with all that.
I am very happy to take forward all those issues at this stage. Obviously, we will consider the petition further and decide what we might want to do when we get the various responses.
Are members content with that approach?
Members indicated agreement.
Venice Biennale 2024 (PE2030)
That brings us on to the petition that we very nearly started earlier but stopped midstride. PE2030, lodged by Denise Hooper, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the funding it provides to the Scotland + Venice project and ensure that Scottish artists can contribute to the Venice biennale in 2024.
The petitioner notes that Scotland has participated as its own entity in the Venice biennale since 2003, with people attending the festival specifically to see the Scottish contributions.
The Minister for Culture, Europe and International Development has responded to the petition, saying that the decision to pause involvement in the biennale in 2024 is to allow for an important period of reflection and review. The review was expected to begin during the summer just past and was to include a process of sectoral engagement to explore new approaches to the project for the longer term.
The petitioner has also provided a submission highlighting recent comments by the First Minister about the value of culture, and is urging a greater focus on the benefits of Scottish culture and arts being promoted on such a prestigious international stage.
I am tempted to ask what the important period of reflection and review was about. I presume that it was on wider considerations than just this one contributory event. Do colleagues have any suggestions? We could certainly write to the Scottish Government asking for an update on its work to its international culture strategy.
The Government submission refers to the decision
“to pause ... involvement”
to allow
“for an important period of reflection and review.”
I would be interested to know what that means. What was important about it and how long is it reflecting, and what is it reflecting on that is important?
We might also write to Creative Scotland to seek information on the review of the Scotland + Venice project. I would also be interested to know what the outcomes of our past participation have been. I do not think that that is terribly clear. What have we seen? Maybe Creative Scotland can tell us how that compares with our participation in other events. It may well be that that is what the Scottish Government is reflecting on. If we heard from all of them, that would be helpful.
Does anybody else want to comment?
In addition to that, it would be useful to ask Creative Scotland to include what monitoring metrics it uses to analyse success or otherwise.
We should ask for a timeline as well.
I thought that you were going to suggest that we go on a fact-finding visit to Venice, Mr Choudhury.
I was about to ask when we are going there. [Laughter.]
Okay. We will write to all those organisations, if members agree.
Members indicated agreement.
I thank Denise Hooper for the petition. We will be investigating the issue further.
Insulin Pumps (PE2031)
Our final petition this morning is PE2031. I have a feeling of déjà vu. When I first joined the Public Petitions Committee, some 12 years ago, one of the first petitions that we considered was on the availability at all of insulin pumps at that time. Here we are again, with a petition, lodged by Maria Aitken on behalf of the Caithness Health Action Team, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that children and young people in Scotland who have type 1 diabetes, and would benefit from a lifesaving insulin pump, are provided with one, no matter where they live.
The petitioner highlights what she views as a postcode lottery relating to the provision of continuous glucose monitoring and insulin pumps for children with diabetes, with a particular concern about the waiting lists for those devices across NHS Highland.
10:30Responding to the petition, the Scottish Government refers to the diabetes improvement plan, which aims to increase access to existing and emerging diabetes technologies that can significantly benefit people with type 1 diabetes. The Scottish Government response highlights that, between 2016 and 2021, it invested an additional £15 million to support the increased provision of insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitoring. The Government also points to current work to roll out diabetes technology with a particular focus on reducing regional variation.
Do members have any comments or suggestions?
We should write to Diabetes Scotland to get its view. Did you write to Jenny Minto, the responsible minister, for an update? I see that there is a suggestion that we do that.
I think that we might get to that. I might quite like to write to the different health boards to ask what the current status within each health board is. The assertion is that provision is a postcode lottery. I have a recollection that, right back at the start when the issue was whether insulin pumps would be provided at all, it was a health board lottery. I think that, all that time ago, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde embraced their provision and other health boards did not.
It would be interesting to know what the provision is within each health board and what policies they have surrounding the award of insulin pumps to children. This sits within a framework in which—I think—it is the case that children are meant to get them if they need them, so we need to find out where we are at with all that.
Diabetes Scotland and the Insulin Pump Awareness Group might be able to help us in that work as well. That would be helpful in the first instance. These are very important matters to those people who in life depend on them.
Do we agree to take that action?
Members indicated agreement.
We will keep the petition open, and we will make those inquiries and consider it afresh when we get responses.
That concludes the consideration of our petitions today. We are next due to meet on 4 October. On that note, I formally close the meeting. Thank you all very much.
Meeting closed at 10:32.Previous
Continued Petitions