Public Petitions Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, October 1, 2013

Official Report 477KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

Access to Insulin Pump Therapy (PE1404)

Item 4 is consideration of current petitions. There are five current petitions, the first of which is PE1404, by Stephen Fyfe on behalf of Diabetes UK Scotland, on access to insulin pump therapy. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions.

For the record, members will be aware that I convene the cross-party group on diabetes and that Diabetes UK Scotland provides a secretariat to the group, so members know that I have a particular interest in the subject. I also draw members’ attention to the fact that there are additional papers—one from the Scottish Government and one from Diabetes UK Scotland.

At the back of Stephen Fyfe’s submission are four questions that Diabetes UK Scotland is keen to have asked and which I would like us to put to the Scottish Government. The first question is about how confident the Scottish Government is about meeting the new deadlines, given the slippage in achieving targets. Members will remember that, when we met in Stornoway, concern was raised about the postcode lottery—some health boards are good, some have special measures and some are just about there—and there is a feeling that some of the targets will not be met.

I have always made it clear that I think that the Scottish Government targets for insulin pumps for patients under 18 and those over 18 are good and should be encouraged. The problem is not the targets but what we should do with the health boards that are not achieving those targets.

The second question is about the mechanisms that are in place to monitor and support health boards, and the third is about the assurance that can be given to parents that, once a child has gone through the initial transition to the pump, they will have access to continuing support. On those three questions, it is vital that we get a response from the Government, so I recommend that we put those questions to the Government and that, once we get a response, we make a decision about whether we need to terminate the petition.

When the minister gave evidence to the committee on insulin pumps, he gave an assurance that he expected all health boards to meet the targets by 2014. However, following that committee meeting, he had to issue a statement saying that, following discussions with NHS Highland and NHS Lanarkshire, the targets would have to be revised, because those boards now expect to deliver the targets in 2015.

I suggest that, when we write to the Government with our questions, we also ask it what assurances those health boards have given that the targets will be met within the revised timescale and why the targets for those two health boards do not seem to match the national targets that are set for other health boards throughout Scotland. We could ask about the individual circumstances in both those health boards that mean that they will not be able to reach their targets in line with every other health board.

Does the committee agree to follow up John Wilson’s points, along with the points that were made earlier?

Certain petitions come before us in relation to which the will expressed is not matched by the deed in action. When we have been confronted with such petitions, it has been sensible to leave them on the table until we have seen evidence of the realisation of their objective.

This is one such petition in relation to which, over a number of years, promises have been unfulfilled. In giving evidence, the minister more or less had to say that he was waving a big stick. We would like to see the evidence in practice of the outcome arising from that. In addition to the other actions that have been suggested, I would like the petition to remain open until we are satisfied that the action has matched the will expressed.

That is well put. I agree with Jackson Carlaw’s point.

Jackson Carlaw’s point is pertinent. The minister came here and gave the commitment that NHS Highland had given, but he then had to correct that, because NHS Highland said that it could not meet the commitment. After some persuasion, NHS Highland said that it would meet the commitment. However, the minister’s latest letter states:

“NHS Highland’s public comments following my evidence to the Committee on the 14th appear to suggest that the Board may still be working to a longer trajectory.”

I would like to know what the penalties are for people who mislead the Government or us and who do not meet their commitments. There may be issues with other health authorities, but NHS Highland is clearly not taking the matter seriously.

The clerk tells me that we have already asked that question, and the Government’s response was that there are no penalties for health boards.

Maybe there should be.

I suggest that we ask the Government whether it would consider producing recommendations on penalties that may be applied to health boards or other public agencies if they fail to meet the targets that have been set in agreement with the Government.

Does the committee agree to continue the petition, to ask the first three questions that came from Diabetes UK and to ask the follow-up questions that John Wilson and Jackson Carlaw have raised?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Organ Donation (Opt-out System) (PE1453)

The next current petition is PE1453, by Caroline Wilson on behalf of the Evening Times and Kidney Research UK (Scotland), on an opt-out system of organ donation in Scotland. Members have in front of them a letter that came from Drew Smith over the weekend.

The committee will recall that we took evidence from the Evening Times on this well-researched and polished petition. I draw your attention to Drew Smith’s letter, in which he suggests that we take evidence from the Welsh Government and directly from Mark Drakeford AM. The Scottish Government is seeking evidence from Wales on the issue, and we could facilitate its argument by getting further information from the Welsh Government—probably a little quicker than the Scottish Government might get it.

The issue is too important for us not to do that. It will further the petition if we are able to get the evidence from Wales as soon as possible.

The clerk reminds me that 15 December is the date for the introduction of the new procedures in Wales. Nevertheless, it would be interesting to look at the thought processes that led to the proposals in Wales.

12:15

If I am right, most parties allow their members to come to an individual and personal conclusion on the issue. Even though there is sympathy for the proposition, concerns have been expressed on all sides—and even though I, too, am in sympathy, I have posed some of those concerns myself.

I read Drew Smith’s letter with interest and I have some sympathy with the idea of taking evidence. However, I want to float with colleagues the question whether this is the right committee to take on that work or whether the petition should be referred to the Health and Sport Committee, to allow those who deal with health issues in more detail to take the evidence. It is sensible to take evidence, but I am not necessarily clear about whether it is the right action for this committee.

Jackson Carlaw makes a reasonable point. Under the committee’s current procedure, we do not automatically refer petitions just because they are about education, health or whatever, as we cannot guarantee that the other committee will be able to carry out the work straight away. As you know—and as I know from comments that I regularly get back from other conveners at Conveners Group meetings—some committees, such as the Justice Committee, are extremely logjammed and find it difficult to do anything other than deal with legislation.

The clerks work closely together and, as our papers make clear, it is strongly recommended that if a petition relates to work that another committee is carrying out we should refer it to that committee, which makes a lot of sense. However, I understand that the Health and Sport Committee is not doing any work on organ donation immediately and it is up to us to decide whether we wish to do the work.

Jackson Carlaw makes a fair point. If members think that it is better to refer the petition to the Health and Sport Committee, that is fine.

I was going to suggest that we establish whether the Health and Sport Committee is undertaking such work but, if that is not likely to be the case, I do not know whether we can compel another Parliament to present itself before us but I would be minded to see whether it would be prepared to share its evidence with us.

The suggestion is that we contact the Welsh Government and invite the minister—I think that Mr Drakeford is a minister—to give evidence at a future date. Do members agree?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Gender-neutral Human Papillomavirus Vaccination (PE1477)

PE1477, by Jamie Rae on behalf of the Throat Cancer Foundation, is on a gender-neutral human papillomavirus vaccination. Members have received the clerk’s note and various submissions. I note that a number of submissions from individuals and organisations are pending—that is not uncommon, unfortunately—and it could be argued that we should wait until we have a full picture of the evidence before we make any decision. Do members agree to wait until we have that full picture?

Members indicated agreement.

Given the number of responses outstanding, it is only right to wait until we have sight of them.

---

Solicitors (Complaints) (PE1479)

PE1479, by Andrew Muir, is on complaints about solicitors. Members have the clerk’s note and submissions. I suggest that, under rule 15.6.2 of standing orders, we refer the petition to the Justice Committee, which is looking at some of the issues that have been raised. The minister will also update us on developments. Do members agree?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Blacklisting (PE1481)

The final petition is PE1481, by Pat Rafferty, Harry Donaldson and Harry Frew on behalf of Unite, the GMB and the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians, calling for an end to blacklisting in Scotland. Members have the clerk’s note and submissions. There is an argument for referring this very good petition to the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee to aid its scrutiny of the forthcoming procurement bill. I think that the Scottish Trades Union Congress, among others, thought that that was an important route. Do members agree with that suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.

I hope that any of our colleagues who come along to give evidence will read the committee’s report before they rush off to the press.

I thank Chic Brodie for his comments.

As agreed under item 1, the committee will now move into private session to deal with the last agenda item.

12:19 Meeting continued in private until 12:54.