Official Report 278KB pdf
Sleep Apnoea (PE953)
Item 4 on the agenda is consideration of PE953, in the name of Miss Jean Gall, which calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to increase awareness of the problem of obstructive sleep apnoea and ensure that the health service is properly funded to treat the illness. I refer members to paper HS/S3/09/31/11, which sets out the details of the petition and the actions that the Public Petitions Committee has taken. I declare an interest, in that Miss Gall is a constituent of mine and I have supported her campaign for a considerable period—members will see that the petition has been going since 2006. I have also spoken at meetings of the Scottish Association for Sleep Apnoea.
I support the actions that you suggest, convener. I also support the suggestion that we write to the Scottish Government, the Scottish intercollegiate guidelines network and NHS Quality Improvement Scotland, seeking an update on the review of SIGN guideline 73. I cannot remember whether you were a member of the Public Petitions Committee in the first session of the Scottish Parliament, convener, but that committee was presented with the same issue. The issue has been raised over a long period and I am concerned that, after all these years, we do not seem to have made the progress that we should have made. It would be useful to pursue the actions that you suggest.
I support that completely. That seems reasonable.
I support that, too. I remember speaking on the subject in Kenny Gibson's member's business debate in the first session of the Parliament. Very little has been said in Parliament about sleep apnoea since then; therefore, I support Helen Eadie's proposals.
I point out that the intercollegiate guidelines came out in 2003, so the initial actions of the Parliament were not without consequences. There is a pretty heavy work programme of revising the existing guidelines, and I think that SIGN has consulted on whether it is appropriate to update guideline 73. It is reasonable to ask the question, but I do not think that we should press SIGN to change its programme because of the petition.
No, it is just information gathering.
Yes.
We are just asking for an update on the review.
Paragraph 5 of the clerk's paper states that SIGN indicated that the review might take place in March 2009. We have gone quite a bit beyond that.
The response from the Scottish Government says that there has been consultation on whether there is a need to update SIGN guideline 73. If no new evidence has been produced since 2003—
The issue of evidence is crucial, especially regarding road traffic accidents. I recall a recent one in Australia, when an elderly gentleman was driving his family and fell asleep at the wheel for just seconds and crashed into a concrete post, killing the entire family except himself. That is a horrendous life sentence for him.
The issue is not just traffic accidents. Sleep apnoea poses other health risks.
Indeed, but that gives the issue some urgency and extends the perception of it beyond its being simply a medical condition to its being something that causes huge issues in other areas.
Out-of-hours GP Services (Remote and Rural Areas) (PE1272)
Item 5 is consideration of PE1272, by Mr Randolph Murray, who has been sitting patiently with his wife throughout our proceedings today. The petition calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that there is adequate out-of-hours GP coverage in remote rural areas. I refer the committee to paper HS/S3/09/31/12, which sets out the details of the petition. The petition was first lodged on 7 September 2009; however, as many of us know, the issue has been running within the community for a considerable time.
It is an important petition on an important topic. We have acknowledged its importance by planning an inquiry into the subject for early in the new year. I do not think that further consideration of the petition is appropriate, as we have agreed to pursue the issues.
I agree with Ian McKee. Our visitors in the public gallery will know that the committee very much shares their concerns. They should not think that our closing the petition today means that we will not take any further action on it. We will take action on it and we are very sympathetic to the concerns that they have raised. I hope that they will go away with the clear message that we are supportive of their concerns.
I agree, although we should perhaps make it clear that, even if we close the petition today, it will be fully considered as part of our out-of-hours health care provision inquiry. Closing it is a technical term; we would by no means be ignoring it. We would be taking it forward in another way.
Yes. Closed does not mean put on the shelf to gather dust.
I had been going to suggest that we keep the petition open, given that we will have an inquiry. However, we have a significant amount of information here, and we would have to make it clear to the petitioners that if, after our inquiry, they are not satisfied with any of our recommendations, they would be at liberty to submit another petition. The issue has been on the cards for quite a long time. I did not see the point in closing the petition, given that our inquiry will begin in January, but I will go with the flow.
Closing it does not mean we are not doing anything; closing it simply means that, because we will deal with it as part of our inquiry, we do not need to keep it open. I believe that Mr Murray has submitted evidence on rural out-of-hours health care provision that will be included in our inquiry, as would any other evidence.
Given that the inquiry is very much based on the concerns raised in the petition, I am happy to go with the rest of the committee.
I would like some clarification. Perhaps the clerks could advise us, but my recollection is that once a petition is closed, there is a specified period in which it is not possible for petitioners to come back with another petition. I cannot remember how long that is. There is also the issue of whether the petitioners will receive a copy of our report when it is published. I want to be sure that, if the petitioners are not happy, there is no mechanism to prevent them from bringing the issue back to the Parliament.
I cannot give you an off-the-cuff answer about whether there is a time bar about coming back with a further petition. If you want, we can leave the petition technically open, although what we are actually doing is taking it forward into our inquiry. I am relaxed about that.
That is helpful. When I was on the Petitions Committee, one of the core principles was that you would always give the petitioners the opportunity to comment on the outcome. If we closed the petition, they would not have the opportunity to do that—that is the difficulty.
I am happy with that. Also, I make it plain that the committee will send a copy to the petitioners of any report that comes out of the inquiry. The petitioners are a central part of the inquiry, so it is not as if they or the petition are being sidelined or parked in any fashion.
Will we consider first responders in our inquiry?
We will come to that in our next item, when we discuss in private our approach to the inquiry. For the benefit of the petitioners I explain that we will go into private session to consider our approach to the rural out-of-hours health care provision inquiry. For example, we will consider which witnesses to call. The evidence that has been submitted is already part of the inquiry. It is normal practice to discuss such matters in private and the committee has agreed to do so. There is nothing untoward about it.
Meeting continued in private until 12:54.
Previous
e-Health Inquiry