Official Report 257KB pdf
We have dealt with PE765 and PE795.
Dementia Treatment (PE886)
PE886 is from James McKillop, on behalf of the Scottish Dementia Working Group. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government and NHS Quality Improvement Scotland to ensure the continued availability on prescription of various medications—even when they are printed I cannot pronounce them—for use in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia. Members have copies of the written submissions relating to the petition in their committee papers. Do members have any suggestions on how to proceed with the petition?
We could write to the Scottish Government, asking for its views in the light of the fact that it is going to produce some proposals on prescribing.
You want to get the views of the Government on the action plan that will be developed and other clinical treatment models.
Yes.
I can hear a high-pitched noise. Is everything okay? My knee operation has not worked—something is howling through.
NHS Dental Services<br />(PE920, PE922 and PE1018)
PE920, PE922 and PE1018 all relate to national health service dental services. PE920 is from Helen Smith and calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to commit further resources to the provision of NHS dentistry. PE922 is from Peter Thomson and calls on the Parliament to consider implementing a different model from the current plan to ensure that NHS dentistry is available in remote and rural areas in the medium to long term. PE1018 is from Keith Green, on behalf of Save NHS Dentistry (Kinross Group), and calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to restore NHS dental services throughout Scotland.
The previous committee spent quite a bit of time considering the matter. However, there still seems to be a lack of NHS services in certain areas of Scotland in spite of the previous Government's efforts, which the current Government seems to be continuing. The letter that we have received from Shona Robison outlines the measures that have been taken and the considerable investment that has been made in NHS dentistry.
I am sure that that is true. Not a week goes by without members having that concern raised with them. It is a structural issue that we need to address.
I agree with what has been said. I am still picking up concerns in the north-east—particularly in Grampian—about dental services.
I wonder whether there are any organisations on the other side, as it were, that could advise us on what is going on from the patient's perspective. The risk of our referring every health issue to the Government and asking what it is doing is that we will hear only one side of the story. I do not know whether there is a patients group or some other group that could tell us the other side of the story, even if it is only a local group.
The health councils work with health boards to highlight patients' concerns.
There are a number of local health councils or forums, but I do not recollect that any of them focus specifically on dentistry. There are certainly patients associations that consider the health service in general. We could raise the matter with them and ask for their comments on dentistry.
The British Dental Association, could update us on how things are going. I have certainly found it helpful in the past.
The issue that has been raised is the number of dental practices that are deciding to become private. Everyone is concerned about that, because it means that people have less opportunity to access dental practices. We should contact the BDA to find out why its members are deciding to go private rather than remaining within the NHS. We need to explore that in some detail because, as Nigel Don indicated, despite the money that the previous Administration ploughed in and the commitment that has been made, something out there is making dentists go down the private route rather than staying within the NHS.
I support that. However, I note that Shona Robison's letter mentions dental practitioners' earnings in the past year and their average NHS earnings, and I would like a response from the BDA on that issue as well. When we write to ask about the issues that are taking dentists out of the NHS, we should ask what influence earnings have on dentists' decision to go private.
Okay. Are members happy with those suggestions?
Hospital Patients (Spiritual Care) (PE923)
PE923 is from Ben Conway and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to promote pastoral and spiritual care in hospitals to ensure that the physical, psychological, social and spiritual needs of patients are properly addressed.
I have been approached by people who are concerned that they cannot easily get the pastoral care that they want in the health service. We should ask the Government to update us. I am aware that the issue arose through data protection, which has spoiled what was a good pastoral service whereby clergy were notified when their parishioners were in hospital. That no longer happens unless the patient issues a positive instruction to involve the clergy. I am not sure what we can do about the matter, but I would like to know the Government's views.
In addition, new communities are emerging. Information came out at the weekend about rooms now being made available at Scottish Premier League clubs for players who respect the Muslim faith. The issue is one of allowing a broadness of spiritual reflection, given the diversity that exists in hospitals now.
A number of issues remain to be considered. Presumably, we have not heard from the Scottish Inter Faith Council on the matter since January 2006—which is coming up for two years. It might be good to consult it again to find out whether it has any further views. We do not know whether information relating to the Data Protection Act 1998 has been published in a form that people understand. We need to know that the view that has been taken by the information commissioner on the passing on of information has been sufficiently well explained.
We will take those points on board and will explore those issues.
Neuropsychological Provision (PE981)
PE981, by James Japp, on behalf of Neuropsychologists UK, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to ensure that the recruitment and appointment of psychologists to NHS Scotland is based entirely on skills, competency and experience—I would hope that that happened; if it did not, I would be really worried—and to initiate an independent review of neuropsychological provision within NHS Scotland. Members have copies of the relevant written submissions.
Animal Carcases (PE1004)
PE1004, by David Adam, calls on the Scottish Parliament to consider the environmental impact of animal gasification plants and to urge the Scottish Executive to ensure that SEPA has sufficient powers and resources to deal with the environmental problems that are associated with the burning and rendering of animal carcases. How does the committee wish to deal with the petition?
The issue seems both very specific and general. I am hesitant to get drawn into the specific part of it. However, we should ensure that the relevant local authorities are doing what they should be doing. I suggest that, if we are comfortable with doing so, we stop dealing with the specific matter. Whether the petition raises important general issues that we should explore is another question.
Do we wish to make further inquiries of SEPA? There is an issue around its review and enforcement process, which concerns the general matter, rather than the specific one. There might be scope at least to raise that point with SEPA. Ultimately, local assessments are for the companies involved, local residents and, I presume, local elected members. They can raise the issues of detail relating to the plant in question. The issue of principle is the criteria that SEPA and others apply to address concerns that may arise in relation to future facilities.
If we go to SEPA and the Health and Safety Executive on that basis, we will be asking a totally open-ended question about how the HSE works that goes right to the top and is absolutely general. I am not sure that that would be terribly productive.
We have the option of closing the petition. I am getting a quizzical look from Robin Harper in the corner. I was just expressing a thought for open discussion.
With all respect to Nigel Don, there are a lot of details that concern me. I do not know whether it is the committee's duty to ask for those to be explained to us, but they need to be explained to someone. I would like at least one further report to be sought, given that there have been a number of incidents, rather than just one. However, we are still being told
If you make a recommendation, the committee can express a view on it.
I would like to get a further update from the Scottish Government on the issue.
Are members comfortable with that?
We have received quite a detailed letter from the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment, who is closely involved with the issue. A further update from him would be welcome. We could then decide what to do with the petition.
Could we ask a specific question about when people step in and what action they are able to take if there is a series of incidents and they think that there is an on-going problem? There could be a series of minor incidents that do not add up to much, that could be investigated and dealt with and that are not connected. Surely someone must be checking whether such incidents are related, but when does that become an issue that cannot be dealt with by on-going investigation? When does someone say that a plant is not being run properly and that something must be done? That is a general, rather than a local, issue. If the power to step in and deal with problems exists—I am sure that it does—we may be able to draw a line under the petition.
I am slightly concerned about what we can achieve. All incineration plants have events when they start up and shut down; that is what happens when stuff is burned. If we ask local representatives of the HSE and SEPA—I am not sure who is involved, but those organisations will know—what their particular protocol for inspection of the plant is, that will be interesting, but it will be relevant only to that plant. If we ask them for their general protocol for inspections of chemical plants, we will get something so general as to be, effectively, meaningless in our deliberations. There will be protocols, but they will always be plant specific. That will not help us.
I knew that I should not have asked a chemical engineer to comment on the issue.
The problem is that every plant, like every human being, is different. In medicine, you look at each patient individually.
As Nigel Don has indicated, every plant may be different, but we are trying to standardise the operation of plants, especially when they deal with carcases, given the issues that those raise. Hopefully, SEPA and the HSE are trying to do the same. We could ask SEPA and the HSE what the guiding principles for the operation of plants are, how the plant in question complies with them and what enforcement structures are in place for SEPA and HSE in relation to plants.
That was a helpful contribution. Shall we see what response we get and then determine the final outcome of the petition?
Assisted Suicide (PE1031)
PE1031, by Professor Donald M MacDonald, calls on the Scottish Parliament to oppose the introduction of any legislation that would permit assisted suicide. I have checked with the clerk and, as noted in members' papers, there is no bill to permit assisted suicide before Parliament. The issue has been explored by a member, which may result in a bill, but that is not the position at present. I would expect such a bill to get extensive parliamentary scrutiny because the issue is about the very essence of who we are as human beings, and how we address such an issue is important. Do members have any ideas about how we should deal with the petition?
I do not see the point in taking the petition any further. When the suggestion was last tested in the Parliament, there was no support for it and, as the convener said, there is no bill before the Parliament. I suggest that we close consideration of the petition.
If assisted suicide becomes the subject of a bill, any individual is perfectly entitled to raise the issue again. It is certainly not an issue on which there will be no public comment. Do we agree to close the petition?
Private Bills (Post-legislative Monitoring) (PE1034)
We come to the final current petition. PE1034, by Kristina Woolnough, on behalf of the Friends of the Roseburn Urban Wildlife Corridor Association, calls on the establishment of a post-legislative monitoring body to ensure that commitments that are made by the promoter during the passage of a private bill are adhered to. We discussed the issue previously. Do members wish to recommend a particular course of action?
We should write to the Scottish Government seeking a response on the specific arrangements that will be put in place to monitor any conditions that may apply.
The issue is perhaps whether people can take legal action if an undertaking is not delivered on and, if there are grounds for taking such action, whether we could close the petition. Those are the two choices facing us. Do members have any strong views on the issue?
I would go with closing the petition. Changes may be made in the run-up to legislation as a result of discussions that take place—people probably sign up to such changes for practical reasons. I think that people have access to legal redress when a change is made that has not been signed up to and properly discussed, on the basis of information that arises once a bill has been passed.
Given the volume of petitions I am comfortable with closing this one. When we had the petition in front of us previously we discussed it fairly extensively and there were pretty good exchanges. I recommend that we close the petition.
Previous
New Petitions