Agenda item 3 is petitions. Those of us, including myself, who were not on the previous committee, are almost overwhelmed by the number of petitions that we have to consider. However, those members of the Health Committee who are also members of the Public Petitions Committee will know about it from their duties on that committee. I cannot remember whether Helen Eadie is on the Public Petitions Committee.
I am.
You might be able to give us extra help with the petitions. I refer members to paper HC/S2/03/09/2, which is a numerical list of the petitions that we will consider. We have various options for dealing with each petition.
Epilepsy Service Provision (PE247)
Are there any comments on PE247, which is from Epilepsy Action Scotland? Our options for action are shown at the bottom of the petition's covering note.
Perhaps we could ask the petitioners to comment on the Executive's latest response.
Did the then Health and Community Care Committee refer petitions to cross-party groups? Would that be appropriate for this petition?
I agree with that suggestion. We are in a vacuum on these matters, and it would be helpful if the cross-party group could give us an update on its position and on how it sees the situation before we decide to take any action. Indeed, the same comment applies to a number of the petitions that we are discussing this afternoon.
Are members content to invite the petitioners to comment on the response from the Executive and to forward the information that we have received to the cross-party group on epilepsy? I do not know how much information the group has already, but I see no harm in letting it have what we have.
From a practical point of view, I think that the situation would be helped by improving early diagnosis and addressing certain staffing issues. Perhaps that might happen if there is any spare money in the budget.
I have just been advised by the clerk that the previous Health and Community Care Committee asked for information about neurological services. Although those papers are not among the papers that accompany the petition, they would be available. Do you want us to ask the minister about specialist epilepsy services in the national health service?
I think so. The response might well impact on our approach to the new rules and regulations that will affect general practitioners. We need to find out more about the Executive's thinking on specialisation.
If we are writing to the minister, it would be helpful if he could supply an update in writing on the Executive's position on matters that the Health and Community Care Committee previously raised such as the national framework for epilepsy, which has been introduced in England. Moreover, I am not sure that we have received full answers to the questions that were raised in paragraph 7 of Margaret Smith's letter of 9 October 2002 to the Minister for Health and Community Care. Have we received any such update on those matters?
No. If members have any other issues to raise, we will include them in a draft letter to the minister; we will circulate the draft to members and then issue it in the committee's name. We will also invite the petitioners to comment on the Executive's response and forward our information to the convener of the cross-party group on epilepsy. Are members agreed?
Organ Retention (PE283 and PE370)
I do not know whether this has been mentioned in members' papers, but the petitioners have indicated that they wish no further action to be taken in relation to petition PE283. Of course, that does not mean that we have to take that course of action. The information is simply for members' guidance.
Let us spend no more time on the petition then.
Fine. Does anyone have a dissenting view?
No.
Are members agreed to take no further action on petition PE283?
I seek members' comments on petition PE370, from the Guardian Angels.
As far as I understand it, the Parliament—certainly this committee—has no power to initiate the public inquiry that the petitioners are calling for.
That is true. It is rather strange that the petitioners want a public judicial inquiry, which seems to be a mixture of a public and a judicial inquiry.
So can we proceed with the petition?
All that we can do is call on the Executive to hold such an inquiry.
It would be useful to ask the Executive about the time scale for introducing any legislation on this matter. I am not clear in my own mind about that. It would certainly be very pertinent to the petitioners' concerns, although I know that it will not answer their call for a public inquiry. That said, knowing about the legislative timetable would be helpful to the committee.
I am advised that last week our clerking team sought a response from the Executive on that very matter, but we have not yet received it. I think that we should write to the Executive with a request for it to provide a time scale for introducing any legislation in this regard.
If we are doing that, I suggest that we lump all three petitions—PE283, PE370 and PE406—together. Although they are slightly different, they all relate to the same issue. Would that be possible?
In a letter to the committee, Miss Doig raised objections to her petition's being grouped under the heading of organ retention and removal. We should respect that.
Chronic Pain Management (PE374)
Petition PE374, from Dr Steve Gilbert, deals with the subject of chronic pain management.
Perhaps we could ask the petitioners for their recommendations and leave it at that for the moment.
In the note on the petition, it is suggested that we seek an update on the Executive's review of the current provision of chronic pain services. It would be worth while doing that.
Yes.
Chronic pain services are extremely underfunded. It is difficult to get someone into a chronic pain clinic. We should ask the minister whether there is any spare funding that could go into those services.
The letter from the Executive, which is dated 8 September, says:
Yes. Someone has spoken to me about the lack of services available through the NHS and has asked whether they could give evidence on the matter.
Perhaps that person should get in touch with Professor McEwen, but I do not know how they would do that. Perhaps we should ask the minister how people who might want to contribute to the review—including the petitioners—could do so. Is that agreed?
Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (PE398)
Are there any comments on PE398, from Helen McDade and others, which deals with myalgic encephalomyelitis?
I believe that the Health Committee should consider taking action in relation to this matter and making contact with the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on ME. The Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care, Tom McCabe, recently gave a presentation to that group.
Would you be satisfied by the option of asking the Executive what plans it has to implement the action group's recommendations, and whether it has a timetable for that?
We should go further.
The first two options are not mutually exclusive. Pursuing both would provide us with more information.
I have those two bullet points ticked. If there is no dissent, we will pursue both.
Are you saying that there will be an inquiry into the petition, leading to a report?
No—we will have to wait for responses.
I am not clear what the convener meant by the two bullet points.
I was referring to two of the options suggested in the paper. They are
I would not like the committee to rule out a further inquiry, but before we decide whether an inquiry would be productive we need to have base evidence.
I am bearing in mind our schedule. It is difficult for us to commit ourselves at an early stage to holding an inquiry. We need to see the responses first.
Deceased Persons<br />(Law and Code of Practice) (PE406)
PE406 is from Miss Margaret Doig, to whom we referred earlier; her letter dated 1 October 2003 is attached to the papers.
We could consider asking NHS Quality Improvement Scotland to revise its standards to give guidance on the appropriate approach in situations where the deceased has no surviving relatives. We could also ask health boards to comment in writing on what steps, if any, they have taken to ascertain the previous wishes of a deceased person, including one who leaves no known relatives, before carrying out a post mortem.
I have ticked options 1, 2 and 3. I suggest that we also request a timetable for proposed legislation to address this issue. I am not sure whether procedures are uniform in all health boards and that is a huge problem. Do we agree to pursue the first three options and to seek from the Executive a timetable for proposed legislation?
Community Volunteers (PE447)
PE447 is from Mr Gregor McIntyre. I invite members' comments on the petition.
I am sure that the Local Government and Transport Committee or the Communities Committee has a watching brief on social inclusion partnerships. It would be appropriate for the Communities Committee to be involved in consideration of this petition.
I did not think about that, but it is a good idea. Does anyone dissent from David Davidson's suggestion?
I am not sure how the petition would fit into the work of the Health Committee. It lends itself much more to the Communities Committee.
Is that agreed?
Autistic Spectrum Disorder (PE452)<br />Psychiatric Services (PE538)
Autism Treatment (PE577)<br />Heavy Metal Poisoning (PE474)
PE452, which is from Mr James Mackie, relates to the provision of dedicated resources for dealing with autistic spectrum disorder. I seek members' views on the petition.
At this stage, these are matters for the Scottish Executive, rather than the Health Committee. We have received a number of papers relating to a range of areas.
I am not sure, but I think that your point relates to petitions PE452, PE538 and PE577. Will you run that suggestion past me again? I am sorry, but my head is not here today.
I would be happy if we proceeded in the two stages that are suggested in the paper from the clerk, which are to deal with the petitions on autism together and with the one on heavy metal poisoning separately. However, given that petitions are taking up almost a whole meeting, to save time for the committee, it would be useful if we highlighted all those petitions together, although if we received separate replies, that would be fine.
Do you mean that we should include PE474?
Yes.
The previous committee received a letter from the Scottish Executive on petition PE474 on 3 February. The third paragraph from the bottom on page 2 states:
Aphasia (PE475)
Petition PE475 is from Mrs Cecilia Yardley, on behalf of Speakability.
There are a number of pertinent questions to be put to the Scottish Executive on the issue. A number of issues jump out, including the lack of data and how health boards support people and local organisations that provide specific services. We should put those questions to the Scottish Executive and elicit a response before we decide whether to take further action. Many of the relevant questions are contained in the petition and the letter from Speakability.
I give Sylvia Jackson's apologies—she had hoped to attend the meeting for this item because the issue affects her constituents. I have no problems with Shona Robison's suggestion.
Do members want the letter to be circulated before we send it to the Executive?
Digital Hearing Aids (PE502)
Petition PE502 is from RNID Scotland. I think that it has been superseded to an extent.
Yes, I think it has. The Scottish Executive has met the request to show a firm commitment to providing digital hearing aids and to modernising audiology services in Scotland. It has shown that firm commitment by investing more than £20 million over the next five years in ensuring the routine issue of digital hearing aids when they are the most clinically effective option. That is not only in the partnership agreement; the funding backs it up. That fully meets the petitioners' request.
We are now at the stage of considering not just the commitment, but the roll-out of capacity in staff terms and which years the money will be spent in. I do not know whether that is a valid point at this time, but it seems to be part of what the petitioners were asking for, although it is not on the front page of the petition, which was written some time ago.
In addition to the extra money that has gone into the initiative, which Mike Rumbles mentioned, the other positive news is the fact that the audiology needs assessment group has made several recommendations. That, together with the implementation, shows that the petitioners have made a difference of which they should be proud. It is also testament to the efforts of the many parliamentarians who have either written letters to the minister or have raised the matter in the chamber. The story is one of the petitioners making a difference with the help of the parliamentarians.
I am just checking the terms of the petition. I wonder whether the commitment to modernising audiology services includes the provision of hearing tests, as there is a huge problem in getting a hearing test after referral. We might want to check that. Although the issue of digital hearing aids has been cleared up, my understanding is that—certainly, in the Borders—people can wait nearly two years for a hearing test following referral. I do not know whether that is one of the issues behind the petition.
We could take option 1 and write to the petitioners, asking whether they are satisfied with the action that has been taken. Then they could get back in touch with us if there are issues that have not been dealt with.
The provision of hearing tests is patchy, especially for children, although testing of eyesight and hearing is important in ensuring that when children come to school, they have the best of both worlds in that they can see and hear.
Apart from hearing from us in writing—which is our first option—the petitioners also have the opportunity to read the Official Report and see what comments have been made. They can then decide whether that issue has still to be addressed.
MMR Vaccination (PE515)
Petition PE515 is from Dorothy Wright of the Brae parent and toddler group, on measles, mumps and rubella vaccinations. I ask for comments, please.
Since the petition was submitted to the Parliament, we have seen the latest figures on uptake. If people are not using the vaccine, what difference would it make if individual injections were available on the advice of GPs? Would that help to cover some of the shortfall that we are seeing? We do not have herd immunity guaranteed at the low level of uptake of the MMR vaccine. That is obviously the drug of choice, but there is an issue around it. Perhaps the petitioners would like to comment on that. We might want to write to them, asking for their views now that the latest figures—which are only a few weeks old—are available.
This is a serious issue and it would be dangerous for us to make snap judgments as we flick through the petitions. It is a major cause of concern throughout Scotland. If we want to pursue the matter, we should discuss it when we are considering our work programme, and our decision on it should be made in the context of the other issues that we will be considering. I am not sure that we should take any further action on the petition now. If we want to decide to pursue the matter, we should do so at the appropriate time, when committee members discuss our future work programme.
I am not averse to Mike Rumbles's suggestion; he makes a fair point. However, there are a number of questions that are worth asking, which I am happy to discuss either when we come to consider the work programme or now. There are questions about the Executive's current position and in connection with the points that David Davidson made and the supply of the single vaccine. We should consider whether there ought to be a change to the current position.
I support the view that we should not leap to a conclusion on the matter; we need to give some considered thought to how the committee might want to pursue the matter further. We get many laudable petitions, but they must always be considered in the context of the Parliament's work programme, and we must be realistic. I support Mike Rumbles's view on that.
This is one of the most urgent petitions before us, given the worry about people not being immunised against measles, mumps and rubella, especially measles. People who have not been taking up the vaccine are now laid open—as I was as a young child—to measles and everything that goes with it. Folk have forgotten the seriousness of measles as an illness. Communities are in danger of not being protected. I do not think that there has been enough vaccine to cover everybody who wants single vaccinations. I accept the point about the difficulty of getting all the immunisations done in the appropriate time but, as I said, our communities are in danger of not being protected.
I suggest that we write to the Minister for Health and Community Care in the light of the recent figures on herd immunity. We should use his answer to inform a discussion of how to deal with the matter under our forward work plan.
I worry about the prospect of the Health Committee holding a further inquiry—the then Health and Community Care Committee already conducted an inquiry into the matter. It lends more fuel to the media fire. There seems to be little scientific evidence linking the MMR vaccine with autism, but because of the media coverage that the issue has attracted, the take-up of MMR vaccines has reduced quite dramatically, which is very worrying.
I am not saying that we either should or should not hold a further inquiry; I think that our discussion should continue when we come to consider our work programme. I, for one, do not want to discuss all the ins and outs of the matter now, because the issue is too big, and I agree entirely with what Kate Maclean said about our not having all the information. Equally, I would not want to raise issues that should not be raised.
I would support that view if, when we had that discussion, we were able to decide whether we need to take evidence from ministers on the current situation, such as on the uptake figures that I mentioned earlier. We do not want to have a full-scale inquiry into whether MMR is a good or a bad thing. It is generally agreed that MMR is a good thing; the issue that has been raised is whether we can find out why people are not taking up the vaccine. Several members have mentioned that issue. I would certainly support our having a further group discussion on that.
We might want to follow up on the Scottish Executive Health Department letter of 27 February, which gave responses to questions. We might want to get progress reports on one or two issues.
Before discussing the matter with the minister, we should write a follow-up letter to him on the points in the letter of 27 February.
That is my point. The letter is quite old.
I think that we have drifted and I do not like going down this line at all—
We are just seeking information.
It is a mistake to go through the petitions and say that we will write off a letter to the minister or, as David Davidson suggested, question the minister on the issues. Right at the beginning, I suggested that this is such an important topic that we need to get our work programme right. I am not downplaying the issue, but many other health issues are also important and we have only a finite amount of time to deal with them. It is entirely wrong to be discussing the ins and outs of the petition just now. We all know the importance of the subject.
If I may just clarify—
I will come to David Davidson, but Helen Eadie is first. I may also want to respond myself.
I support what Mike Rumbles has said. We need to keep focused on what the petitioner has asked for. She has asked that the Scottish Parliament take the necessary steps to make individual injections available without delay. The petitioner has not asked us to go into all the different nooks and crannies. The petitioner has asked a single clear question.
Yes.
I do not disagree with that, but we seemed to move on to a discussion about what we would do in the work programme. All I am saying is that, if we are to have a discussion, we need to have answers on the outstanding issues from the minister's letter.
I am not seeking an inquiry, by the way; I take no view whatever. Questions were raised by our predecessor committee and I am suggesting that we would like progress reports on the answers that were given. We just want to know what has happened in relation to the various things that we were told would be happening. That is all our questions are—they are no more, and no less, than factual questions. For example, we want to find out what happened to the "joint-funded research programme".
Covering the people who are not covered is such an urgent issue. Some people will never take the triple vaccine and we are confronted with the problem that they will be prone to having measles, mumps and rubella. I do not know what is wrong with asking how we deal with the problem. If children get those diseases, it will cause anguish and heartache. I had bilateral bronchial pneumonia as a child and I had a long recovery period after measles. People are suffering and we must decide how to deal with that quickly and how to get the best result for people. I do not know how we move forward. It is difficult to establish how to deal with the people affected.
As I see it, we have two options. Either we go down the route that Mike Rumbles is suggesting by deferring the discussion that we are getting into until the issue is put on the agenda, or we simply write to the Executive to ask for an update and to find out whether it intends to have a change of policy and to take the necessary steps to make single vaccines available, which the petition requests. We should do one or the other, but there is no point in having an in-depth discussion now.
I did not think that we were having such a discussion, but that is how things have developed. I take it that we want an update on the latest letter, which was dated 27 February 2003. I pointed members to some of the issues on which we want an update. I ask Shona Robison to repeat her last point; I told the committee that my head was not in gear today.
Helen Eadie made the point that the petitioners make a specific request. They call on the Parliament to take the necessary steps to make individual vaccines available. We should ask whether the Executive is going to consider a change of position.
In addition to that, we should ask for an update on the issues that were referred to in the Executive's letter of 27 February.
Fine.
Are members content with that?
No.
You are not content.
No, I am not. To me, it seems that we are in a very odd situation. Shona Robison just said that we had two ways of proceeding. You seemed to assume automatically that we would—
No, I asked whether members were content.
I am saying that I am not content. I am proposing that we write and thank the petitioner for bringing the issue to our attention. The petitioner requests specifically that we take the necessary steps to make individual injections available without delay. I do not know enough about the topic; I do not know whether we should support or reject the petition. Asking one or two questions is not going to help me to come to a conclusion on that. Given all the other subjects that are in our work load, I want the committee to decide whether we will pursue the matter.
Is that your proposal?
Yes.
I would like to hear views on that.
My position—perhaps it is a slight compromise—is that we should write to ask the minister for his views on the recent figures on herd immunity and use his response to inform our discussion of our work plan.
I am happy with that, as long as we write back to say "Thank you very much" to the petitioners.
I agree with having two chunks—one is for the work load and one is a current response—because it is not in our gift to do anything other than discuss the subject more.
I am happy with that.
Is everybody happy with that?
Care Homes (PE522)
Petition PE522 is from Carol Main and concerns the lack of care homes for young physically disabled people in Tayside and the rest of Scotland. I ask for comments, please.
The minimum that we should do is gather information about the issue. The Executive has given a response, but that was back in 2002. Have the petitioners responded to the Executive's response?
No. We have all the papers.
Should we find out what the petitioners think of the Executive's response; for example, whether they feel that it deals with their concern and what issues remain?
The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities says in its letter that it has had difficulty in securing information from member authorities. This is the European year of disabled people—it would send a bad signal to disabled people if we did not accord importance to the petition.
I feel the need for a volunteer coming on.
If any committee were to pursue the petition, I would like it to widen the inquiry to cover not only care homes, but appropriate accommodation for young physically disabled people, because we do not want young physically disabled people to be in residential accommodation unless that is appropriate. An inquiry would have to cover the level of support for people who stay in their own accommodation or in sheltered accommodation. It would be more interesting to find out how many young physically disabled people are in residential units when they would prefer to be supported in a more home-like setting.
The point is well taken.
I have a point that is along much the same lines. The statistics show that there are not huge numbers involved; however, every case is different. There is a range of figures covering day centre support and so on. It would be helpful if we or the Public Petitions Committee understood what facilities are available in every local authority or health board area to support young physically disabled people. That would be an extension of the statistics that we have, and follows on from what Kate Maclean said.
I am not sure what inquiries, if any, the Public Petitions Committee has undertaken. Can you tell us, Helen?
As I recall, no major inquiries are under way. I think that generally we have dealt with the petitions that have come in and referred them on or made initial inquiries of the Scottish Executive.
It is quite an attractive suggestion that the Public Petitions Committee deal with PE522. That committee has some time and it is branching out, which is a good thing. Are members content that we ask the Public Petitions Committee to take on the petition, and that we ask it to widen the scope of the inquiry to address provision for physically disabled young people?
Mental Welfare (Complaints Procedure) (PE537)
We move on to petition PE537, from Alexander Mitchell, on the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland. What are members' views?
I was interested in the Scottish Executive's response to the petition, which stated:
Although I agree with Mike Rumbles's assessment of Professor Brown's capabilities, when last I met her—which was recently—she was having difficulty co-ordinating new office facilities and amalgamating staff. I do not think that she has got into the job yet. However, it might be helpful to receive from her an idea of where her department is going and how it will handle that role so that we are informed; we could pass that information back to the petitioner.
We should also copy this work to the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on mental health, which does good work.
Elderly People<br />(Residential and Respite Care) (PE551)<br />Residential Care (PE576)
Care Homes<br />(Personal Expenses Allowances) (PE591)<br />Frail Elderly People (Local Services) (PE597)
Residential and Nursing Care Places (PE599)
I have to declare an interest in petition PE551 because I helped the petitioners, as constituents of mine, in drafting the petition. However, my involvement ended there. The petition goes along with several other petitions on care of the elderly. We may wish to speak to them together. One of them is PE576. Another is petition PE597, from East Lothian. I also helped the petitioners to draft that petition.
During our away day, we decided for the first time that we should undertake post-legislation scrutiny. We decided that the matter of the petitions would be a likely topic for us to consider the impact of the legislation, considering that the previous committee did the original investigation and the legislation went through. We already have the subject on our work programme.
I will identify all the petitions relating to care in the community and the elderly because I missed one out. They are PE551 from Mrs Pat Brown, PE576 from Mr Ross Vettriano, PE591 from Stuart Hay and PE599 from John McKenzie Elder.
It is important to write to the petitioners to say that the petitions have been helpful.
Absolutely—we should also say that the petitions are not dead in the water, but are being absorbed into our inquiry.
Multiple Sclerosis (Respite Homes) (PE572)
PE572 is from Patrick and Jennifer Woods and is about provision in Scotland of respite homes with no upper age limit for sufferers of multiple sclerosis and other disabling conditions.
I declare that I sit unpaid on the Aberdeen respite project management group.
The petition is trying to take up the general issue of the limited respite facilities that exist throughout Scotland. During the summer I met representatives from the MS Society so I know that there are issues. Bearing in mind our tough work programme, we might have to arrive at the same conclusion over and over again. When there is an issue that we know is important but cannot slot immediately into our work programme, we should put it into a pool for consideration later. It would be worth our while to have discussions about such issues, but we should not distort or overextend ourselves at the moment.
If we are going to ask questions about respite care, I would like to widen the issue a little bit. As well as ask whether there is adequate provision of respite care, we should ask whether there is appropriate provision. I know of young adults who receive respite care in nursing homes for the elderly, which is obviously wholly inappropriate.
In the first instance, we should write to COSLA to ask whether there are adequate and appropriate facilities for respite care for people who have disabling conditions. We should ask for statistics on the facilities to be provided. As COSLA does not represent all the local authorities, if members wish to receive a global picture, we should also write to the authorities that are not members of COSLA. We will send copies of the responses to the petitioners and, in the meantime, we will close our consideration of the petition. We will have to consider the petition as part of a later work programme, but at least we will have elicited the information from COSLA. Is that what you want, Kate?
The problem with approaching only COSLA is that local authorities are probably not even the major providers of respite care—many charities and other organisations provide such care. We should approach the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care to find out what establishments and organisations are registered to provide respite care, which might allow us to get a fuller picture of the situation.
That is a better idea. We will approach the care commission first.
We should approach both the care commission and COSLA.
Fine.
We have dealt with petitions PE576, PE591 and PE597, which all relate to a similar issue.
Contaminated Blood (Public Inquiry) (PE611)
Petition PE611, which is from Andy Gunn, is on haemophilia.
I feel the same way about this petition as I did about the petition on the MMR vaccine. We should write back to Andrew Gunn, thanking him for his petition and saying that he has raised an extremely important issue, of which the committee is aware and on which the committee is taking action. We must close consideration of the petition, otherwise it will come back again and again.
We have a briefing, and we will deal with the issue when we discuss our forward work programme after the recess. Are members content with that?
Pharmacy (Control of Entry Regulations) (PE613 and 614)
Petitions PE613 and PE614 call on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to reject the recommendations that relate to Scotland in the Office of Fair Trading's report entitled "The control of entry regulations and retail pharmacy services in the UK".
We have done that.
I told you that my head was mince today.
Meeting continued in private until 15:38.
Previous
Subordinate Legislation