Public Petitions Committee, 21 Sep 2009

Meeting date: Monday, September 21, 2009

Official Report 251KB pdf

---

New Petitions

---

Blood Donation (PE1274)

We have with us in the audience pupils from Bridgend and Park primary schools. People from the Scottish Parliament's education services are in the school today to work with youngsters. Since 1999, we have tried to ensure that schools can benefit from the new Parliament.

I invite the petitioners from Alness academy to come to the table. You are probably a wee bit nervous, but do not worry. We have got a better view than you have got. I apologise for that.

PE1274 is from Andrew Danet, who is a pupil at Alness academy. He is calling on the Parliament to urge the Government to introduce a scheme to pay people each time they donate blood, and to consider other measures to encourage more people to donate.

I welcome Andrew Danet and his fellow pupils Ben Jones and Aidan MacKenzie to the committee. I know that Andrew has already become a star of radio and television as a result of the interviews that he has conducted on the subject of the petition. Some members of the committee have listened to those interviews, which have given us a greater understanding of the issues that are involved.

Andrew, you have three minutes in which to make a presentation to the committee.

Good morning. It is good to see you in Alness academy. It is a pleasure to have the committee here to listen to our views and ideas.

Donating blood is an honourable, brave and life-saving thing to do. A unit of blood can save someone. Three teaspoons of blood can save a baby's life. However, although it is an heroic thing to do, not a lot of us do it—only 5 per cent of people in our nation give blood, which is terrible. We do not donate enough blood. Is it because we are lazy? Is it because we lack awareness programmes?

One of the ways of addressing the issue would be to pay people to donate blood. In other countries, awareness of blood donation is far greater than it is here. For example, in Iceland, Greece and Germany, where people can get €20 for giving blood, they have far higher levels of donors—in Iceland, 32 per cent of people give blood. In America, following a programme that was run a few years back, the rate is 15 per cent, which is still far higher than it is here.

In countries such as France and Belgium, blood donation companies go to offices, schools and shopping centres, which attracts far more people to donate blood. Also, their awareness campaigns have a much higher profile. For example, when I was in Paris, I noticed that there were plenty of blood donation adverts on television, and that there were posters everywhere. Awareness seems to be far higher in European countries than it is here.

There is a 20 per cent drop in blood donation in summer and a 30 per cent increase in winter, which is a lot.

Blood donation is an important issue that we wanted to bring to the attention of the committee. The donation rate in this country is not very high. I agree that blood donation is a selfless service, but that is not enough. We live in a country where everyone is busy—they are at work, at meetings of the Public Petitions Committee or at school—and may not have time for blood donation. Perhaps we should look at going into offices and high schools. That is one way to raise numbers.

Blood donation systems are more interesting in the rest of Europe. In France, there are adverts and Iceland offers money. Denmark has an insurance fund to cover expenditure arising from donors' personal injuries. We do not have anything like that in Scotland. We should try such interesting ideas here.

Well done. Thank you, Andrew. Do you feel better now?

Yes.

Ben Jones and Aidan MacKenzie, who are also here for this petition, should feel free to answer any of the questions that are asked.

I congratulate Andrew Danet on a very good presentation and a significant petition. There is no doubt that we need an increasing number of blood donors. I have a personal interest in the subject as, in a previous life, I was an anaesthetist and was well aware of the need for blood during major surgical procedures; I used quite a lot of it then. I am also the mother of a son who had to have a liver transplant a number of years ago; I think that about 26 or 27 pints of blood had to be administered during the operation, which is way over blood volume. I am glad to say that he is very well now.

You have come up with some good and interesting suggestions, including on how to increase publicity. I think that what applies to blood donation also applies to organ donation; the two share the ethos that we give of our bodies to help others. I have a slight quibble with the idea of paying people to donate blood. The service has always operated as a voluntary service. A number of countries that paid for blood in the past no longer do that. As you may be aware, the World Health Organization policy is that, for blood to be safe, donations should be made voluntarily and not paid for. That is to avoid giving incentives to people to give blood for the wrong reasons and to fail to disclose conditions that would preclude them from becoming a donor. Clearly, the safety of blood is very important. I tend to side with the World Health Organization. What are your comments on that?

I agree that donation should be kept voluntary. The safety of blood is important. If a money scheme was introduced, we would have to raise the level of checks that determine whether blood is safe. I understand the concerns of the World Health Organization and the transfusion service. When I was doing a radio interview in Northern Ireland, I heard that the policy there is that blood donation should be purely voluntary to make donated blood as safe as possible. I agree on that, but a money scheme would increase numbers, albeit that it is risky. We are a fairly safe country, so we could try out the idea.

There would be a cost to increased screening. At the moment, every blood donor has to complete a strict questionnaire and there are many categories of people who cannot give blood. Blood is thoroughly screened anyway but, if people cheated on the questionnaire and did not disclose conditions that they should disclose, and screening had to be upped and more people had to be screened, that would have a financial implication for the running of the service, including in terms of staff costs. I would think that that would be a downside to your argument. Would you like to comment on that?

I agree with you that that would be a bit of a downside, but increasing blood donation is very important—it is life saving. The biggest downside would definitely be increasing staff costs and so on. That is probably the con of my petition.

At the end of the day, the whole point of the petition is to save lives. Paying people to donate blood will increase the numbers and that will save lives. When we started this, we did not know that it would be so big and that people would feel so much about it. Everyone in this room has probably had a family member who has needed blood at some time, which is why people feel so passionately. If people feel passionate about this, we could make it work.

As with all things like this, there will be people who try to cheat the system. I have read stuff online about people having fake identification and more than one ID so that they can give blood more than once in order to get more money. There will be ways to cheat the system but, as I say, if people feel passionately about this, we can make it work and there will be ways to combat that.

Do you think that there are ways of doing that short of paying people to give blood—by increasing advertising, running awareness campaigns and so on? Do you agree that that should be the first move?

Yes. Paying people is high up the ladder. The first stage would be to increase advertising campaigns, which is what they do in other countries. Paying people is the extreme way to go. I appreciate your concerns about that being a safety risk, but it could work if people feel passionately about it.

I congratulate the petitioners on an excellent presentation and commend them for bringing a very important subject to the committee this morning. Ben, you said that if blood donors were paid, more would come forward. What evidence do you have for that?

As Andrew says, in the countries that pay people to donate blood, the percentages are higher: 32 per cent in Iceland and 42 per cent in Denmark. Obviously, there is no direct link between paying people and those percentages, but it is suggestive.

To support your case, you point out that the figures are higher in Iceland. Do you have any other international examples of paying people being successful? If it is successful in Iceland and other places, what do they do to prevent people from coming forward who carry blood infections such as HIV and hepatitis?

That is a good question. I will be honest with you and say that I do not know the answer.

Okay. Perhaps we can investigate that, convener.

I have one other question for any of the petitioners. Our information is that, at the moment, around 5 per cent of the Scottish population donate blood. We are also told that only 1 to 3 per cent of a national population needs to donate blood to ensure that there is enough blood available. If you accept both those facts, what is the point of your petition?

Help me out here. Okay, 5 per cent is a lot, but there might be a higher demand eventually. We are quite a small nation but the figure of 1 to 3 per cent does not sound a lot. I think that I read somewhere that it was not 1 to 3 per cent—I think that I read that it was 10 per cent, but I am not sure. I just think that it would be good to have an excess of blood rather than a shortage.

That is an excellent answer to that question.

But your blood pressure went up when that question was asked, did it not?

I, too, am not sure, for the reasons that have been gone over, whether I am convinced about the idea of paying people to give blood. However, I am interested to know that there is a much better awareness scheme in France. The Public Petitions Committee has a reputation now of trying to be up to date and of using information technology—you cannot see that now, but there we go. You mentioned in your presentation the possibility of using e-mail and text alerts. Would you like to expand on that?

I understand that you cannot totally accept the idea of paying people to give blood, but I appreciate very much that you agree with raising awareness. In France, people get e-mail and text alerts that say that blood donations can be taken at a particular place, date and time. People are therefore kept up to date. They can be sent a text a week before, for example, so the system is very effective.

That sounds like something that we could encourage people to do. It is very good to see young people being passionate about donation. Nanette Milne referred to organ donation, and there is even brain donation now—the Parkinson's Disease Society is pushing it. Quite a lot of work goes on in the Parliament on donation, and a blood donor van comes to the Parliament. We therefore really appreciate the publicity that the petition has given donation.

I would like to add, Frank, that when we were talking about—

Call me convener.

Sorry. We said to the convener that the donation age in Northern Ireland is 16, which is something that we should maybe look at, because the donation age here is 17. Why do we not allow donation at 16? What is the difference?

Where do you, as a teenager, take your information from most quickly? Is it from the new technologies of texts and the internet, or from conventional sources?

For me, it is from everything, but I can definitely see the appeal of up-to-date things such as television, e-mail and the internet. I can definitely see where they are coming from. I think that I would prefer to have a modern style of giving information.

One of the concerns that people have is how they fit in donations with busy lifestyles. For example, what always happens with me is that the letter comes in, I put it on the mantelpiece and I never quite get back round to it. It would be good if there was a regular reminder. Obviously, you would still have to take yourself to a particular location, whether that be the workplace, a study place or whatever, but it would be helpful to have a bit more prompting. Knowing where the venue was, and having a couple of hours to spare, you might think of popping over. That strikes me as a more effective way to trigger voluntary donations. From what I have picked up, I think that there is concern among committee members about a policy of paying people to donate. There is the issue of the regulatory framework to consider, and the safety issue and the principle behind it.

Beyond that, though, the broader question in your petition is about the effectiveness of the service. You are right to say that we do not know what is ahead of us medically or in terms of international events that might require a substantial blood bank, so that issue might be worth exploring. It would be helpful if, after reflecting on the issue—not necessarily today—you could make suggestions about how teenagers could get more engaged and how more teenagers could be brought within the orbit. For example, you said that the donation age is 16 in Northern Ireland and asked why it could not be the same here. Why cannot we look at that? Is there a practical way to overcome that difference? I would appreciate receiving your views on those areas subsequent to today's meeting.

I agree with what you said, convener. I do not think that a system of paying people to donate blood would find much support. It would create all sorts of anomalies and we would have people queueing up in a kind of dole queue on a Monday morning to get £5 or whatever. I can see all sorts of problems there. However, I certainly think that much more could be done through advertising and public awareness schemes to encourage people to continue to give as they do at present and maybe to encourage more to come aboard. There is no doubt that the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service undertakes a tremendous amount of work. People who work in the profession know how essential it is that there is a blood bank that is adequate for our needs. We should therefore have more publicity and more public awareness schemes.

When I was on Irish radio, I asked the man from the Irish blood transfusion service what he thought of the idea, and he just said point blank, "No way." I thought that the money idea was worth a try, but blood money was not my initial plan—it was definitely blood donation awareness.

I do not know whether the issue is a morbid fascination for young people. I know from my own teenagers about the likes of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", "Twilight" and the new show "True Blood"—which must be supervised, I hasten to add; it is a great show, but it is pretty wild.

There is an issue around trying to ensure that youngsters are aware of the contribution that they can make. The committee has raised an immediate concern about cost but, in broader terms, we are happy to take on board some of your suggestions. We would like to explore further on your behalf the issues that you have raised to do with age, accessibility and promotion, and the need to ensure that we have a supply of blood that is adequate for our potential future needs.

Are there any further comments from members before we conclude the discussion of this petition?

The petition has come at an opportune time, as there happens to be a members' debate in the Parliament on Thursday on the need for more blood donors. Members' debates take place at 5 o'clock after Parliament's official business of the day and, although a vote is never taken, a minister is present—it will probably be Shona Robison in this case—to reply to the points that are raised.

I am speaking in the debate on Thursday, and I will certainly draw the petition to the minister's attention. The suggestions that you have made today will appear in the Official Report of this committee meeting—I will read it before the debate and ensure that I raise some of your non-remunerative suggestions. You have made some very good suggestions today, some of which—text alerts, for example—are important for your generation.

Ben Jones said honestly that he could not answer the question on what the current situation is in Greece, Germany and America—I do not know whether any of us can at the moment. Perhaps we could set up a videoconference with representatives from the services there—rather than taking a trip to any of those places, I hasten to add—to find out what they do to increase the level of donation and to ensure that it is safe.

All the committee members will take part in a debate on Wednesday on a report on the way in which the Public Petitions Committee has been a success, the areas in which it has been less successful and how we can improve the public petitions process. One of the suggestions in the report is to hold more videoconferences so that we can check out what is done in other countries and make international comparisons to see whether what we do matches best international practice. As, like Ben Jones, none of us knows for certain about the situation in other countries, we could perhaps take forward the videoconference suggestion in considering this petition.

I will just add—in case it changes anything—that, in Greece, the blood donation for money is run by a privatised rather than a public company.

I think that safety is the main criterion, although I would always prefer public to privatised.

I think that it is commendable that a group of young people should lodge such a petition. It merits a lot of support. Not many young people would consider sitting down to write a petition on such an important issue.

I, too, commend Andrew Danet and his team for lodging the petition.

However, although it might be worth while communicating with other nations about how they deal with blood donations, we should bear in mind Bill Butler's question to Andrew Danet about who provides the blood donations in those nations. Under the American system of private medical health care, users ultimately pay for such a service through their insurance. At present, America is involved in a major debate on public health care. The fact that many people each day in Scotland give blood for free pays testimony to our current system of health care. I would have an issue with encouraging people to give blood in return for a payment, because the NHS would ultimately need to pay for that. Like America and Greece, we could then end up with creeping privatisation. That would mean that everyone in this room would end up paying increased charges for a service that they receive for free at the present time.

Therefore, if we are to contact other nations, it might be worth while contacting nations that have a similar system to that of Scotland and the UK. That would be better than comparing our system with those of nations that have a system of private medical health care, which would only make for an unfair comparison.

I hope that those responses provide some indication of the thoughtfulness that the committee can show in considering petitions. This Thursday's committee debate in the parliamentary chamber will provide further opportunities for discussion of the issue.

The guarantee that I can give to Andrew Danet is that we will explore many of the points that have been raised by the petition. As will be evident from the nature of the questioning, we can be quite direct when we need to get to the heart of an issue. However, it is better to be honest at the beginning than to have any insincerity about the value of a petition. We think that the other aspects of the petition will be the most productive in dealing with the concerns that have been raised. We will keep the petitioners up to date with the progress that we hope to make on the issue so that they have a chance to follow their petition through the rest of the process.

I thank the petitioners for their time. They should feel free to remain where they are while the other school students make their presentation. I hope that today's session has been helpful.

Thank you very much.

I am conscious that we also have other new visitors today. Put up your hand up if you are from Bridgend primary school. Thank you very much—the old tactics still work well. We also have visitors from Park primary school.

I hope that you have all had a good experience with our education service this morning. We hope that today has given you a chance to understand more about the Parliament and how it should respond to you as citizens. When you reach voting age—which could soon be 16 rather than 18, according to speculation at the weekend—and cast your vote, we hope that you will be aware of the role that is played by the Parliament and by parliamentarians such as those who have been present today. If you ever see any of us in future, you can always buttonhole us and say, "When I was in primary 6/7, you came to my local high school. What have you done since about blood transfusion?"

I know that the Bridgend primary school pupils might need to leave shortly. If their teachers are thoughtful—they can stay here if they wish, unless that would cause trouble with the headteacher—they might want to leave just now before we consider the next petition. I thank everyone for their time and I hope that they have enjoyed being present here today.

---

School Visits (Funding) (PE1275)

Our final new petition today is PE1275. Again, it is from a student here at Alness academy. Andrew Page is ably assisted by Kirsty Adamson and Katie Lowe. The petition calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to ensure that all pupils at schools in remote areas such as the Highlands are not limited or prevented from visiting educational, cultural or study events in the central belt or Lowlands; to demonstrate financial equity in meeting the costs of such visits; and to ensure that location does not limit the opportunity to have such experiences.

I welcome the young students to the committee. You have seen the format, so do not worry too much about this. I invite Andrew Page to open with some comments—good luck to you.

Hello everyone, and welcome to Alness. Our petition is on equity in funding for school visits. The petition was created because here in Alness we feel that we are missing out on many educational events in the central belt and Lowlands of Scotland due to our geographical location. We need to pay large sums of money to get to events in the central belt and Lowlands. For example, a bus for 40 pupils costs our school about £480, which is usually split among the pupils who go, so families have to pay rather large amounts of money for their children to go on school trips.

Most educational events are held in the central belt. I know that we have Culloden up here, and Loch Ness, I suppose, but there are far more things down in the central belt, especially in Edinburgh and Glasgow. We also have the problem that going down to Edinburgh or Glasgow takes an awful lot of time, and there is nothing that we can do about that, but it means that we might also have to get accommodation, which adds to the £480 that we need for the bus. That does not help. It is rather unfair that pupils who are located around the central belt can get to those educational events, whereas we have to pull out of events because they are too much for our finances.

It does not help in the current economic climate if families have to pay large sums of money for their children to go on such trips. Many people are now redundant, and it is very hard for them. If one pupil goes on three or four trips to an educational site in the central belt or Lowlands in a year, their family has to pay about £100, which is far more than someone in the central belt pays—they probably have to pay very little. It is rather unfair, we feel.

We are requesting a subsidy, which would greatly benefit the educational journey of pupils in Highland. It would help with their families' finances, and it could also help us in studying for our important standard grade and higher exams. Such trips certainly benefit pupils and help with their studying and learning.

Well done, Andrew. If Kirsty Adamson and Katie Lowe do not have anything to add at the moment, they can respond to questions.

The issue has been in the news recently, with an announcement relating to opportunities to visit designated sites of importance. That perhaps comes into the broader discussion.

I invite questions from members.

Well done, Andrew, and well done to your fellow petitioners for your presentation and for the content of your petition. Could you give the committee one or more examples of an educational or cultural trip that you or your fellow school students were prevented from going on because of the cost?

I believe that there was a study session for higher students down in Edinburgh that our school was scheduled to go to, but due to the financial implications we failed to attend.

Do you feel that that was to your detriment? If you had been able to attend, would it have helped you in the course of your study?

I am sure that it would have helped the higher students who failed to go to it.

You answered that perfectly.

If you are saying that there should be additional targeted funding or subsidy, who do you think should pay for it—the local authority or the Scottish Government?

The Scottish Government.

Through the local authority?

Yes.

That was a perfectly clear answer. Thank you very much.

As someone who was a councillor in the north-east of Scotland, I have a lot of sympathy for the principle of the petition. I know that schools in Aberdeenshire have to think very hard before they go on trips to the Scottish Parliament, for example. They have to tie in such trips with several other visits at the same time to make them financially viable. Educational trips are expensive. We come back to the fact that money is tight.

I have two questions. In your time at school, have you gone on any educational trips that were far afield? Where did you go? You mentioned one that did not come off. Earlier in the meeting, we talked about technology. You mentioned the highers event. Instead of travelling to it and thereby increasing your carbon footprint—to use the modern jargon—could you have taken part in it through videoconferencing? Could you have benefited from that more environmentally friendly approach?

One visit that we went on was a geology trip to Our Dynamic Earth in Edinburgh, which cost roughly £35 to £40 per person, so it was quite expensive for us to go there. We had two or three coaches and more than 60 people went. We had to leave early in the morning and we had to finish our visit reasonably quickly. We also visited the Scottish Parliament and, again, we had to be reasonably quick. If a subsidy was available, not only would that knock money off the price of such trips, it might allow us to stay longer. If we had had money to pay for accommodation, we could have visited more locations in Edinburgh, such as Edinburgh castle. That would have really benefited us, as we would not have had to leave at such an awkward time. It would have been less tiring for us if we had come back the next day at about 4 o'clock and got home at a reasonable time.

What about my second question, which was about doing part of such trips by videolink? I know that you probably could not visit Our Dynamic Earth by videolink, but perhaps you could find out about the Scottish Parliament that way.

It might be possible to use videolink for some events, but it is not quite the same, and pupils might not benefit in the same way.

Are the petitioners aware of anyone who has been unable to get sports training or to participate in sports competitions because of a lack of funding? I am aware of someone in Inverness whose children enter swimming competitions and they travel to Stirling because that is where the nearest 50m pool is. You did not mention sport. Are there similar considerations in that context?

Yes. Trips for sport would be included.

Could you give us any examples that you are aware of?

I have a friend called Lewis McIver who could not attend one of our Scottish competitions. He had to rely on a lift, because he was the only one going and there was no bus or coach, but he could not go because his driver was sick.

What sport was that?

He did shotput—well, athletics.

Thank you.

There was a recent announcement that some resources would be provided to try to encourage school visits to the birthplace of Robert Burns, and to Culloden and Bannockburn. Given that you are close to Culloden, that is probably not the most exciting news for you. Are there any other events or occasions that you think that a young student in your academy would benefit from? I presume that awareness of the history of the immediate area is already in the curriculum.

Study conferences would be one example.

One of the things that all members feel strongly about is that the national galleries are all in Edinburgh. That is okay if you live or work in Edinburgh, but they are meant to be for everyone in Scotland. There are strong historical reasons why the galleries are in our capital city, which we can debate the rights and wrongs of until the cows come home, but that is the reality. How do we ensure that all citizens, particularly young citizens like yourselves, can experience those galleries, given that it is your mothers and fathers who are paying the taxes to provide them? That is a big question; sorry to ask you it. For example, do you think that it would be great if schools were given a cross-subsidy so that students could experience what is available in those galleries over the year?

Yes. The subsidy would be for educational trips, not other trips, such as end-of-term trips.

I do not think that we would be paying for long limousines or prom parties. Do not worry about that.

The issue is that you think that youngsters in other schools in Scotland have greater access to some things because of their geographical location.

University open days are another example. It is difficult for us even to visit a university to see what it is like. The only thing that is kind of similar—it is not really the same—is Inverness College. It is not a university, so we cannot experience what a university is like. The universities—Aberdeen, St Andrews, Stirling, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Strathclyde—are all further south.

It would also be quite good for students from further south to be able to visit places such as Culloden and many other places in the Highlands and Islands that are integral to our national culture. The point that Andrew is making—sorry, is it Andrew? Yes, it is Andrew.

There are two Andrews.

It is a popular name.

It is a popular name indeed—a good name.

If students further south were able to access funding, it might allow more pupils throughout the country to understand their nation.

It might be an idea if we set up some sort of exchange, so that pupils could spend time in another part of Scotland and live the life that other pupils live.

I want to ask about the national study session, which we can maybe make a noise about for next year and the year after. I was particularly concerned that the session in Inverness was cancelled. Do you know whether another session in Inverness will be set up for you in future?

As far as we are aware, the study session in Inverness was cancelled because it was too expensive to take it further up the country, which we found unfair, because the organisers did not consider the price that we have to pay to travel down. That is the cause of one of our issues: why should we have to pay to travel if they are not willing to bring it further up the country towards us?

That is a direct concern about which we should ask questions for you in future.

There are probably more events in the central belt and the Lowlands than there are in the Highlands. Obviously there are some here but, averaged out, there are more in the central belt and Lowlands, which is harder for us.

We are trying to explore whether there is an attitude that you have to come to the central belt to get the experience and whether others are willing to acknowledge the genuine obstacles that you identify as youngsters—I am sure that they are also true for the broader population—because of the geography of our country. How do we ensure that our public bodies and agencies are more aware of those obstacles, so that we can get a more measured programme of activities that reflects more how far you have to travel? Perhaps activities can be provided in different ways, so that you get some of the experience more locally and then travel for a once-a-year experience, because you have built on other development and access issues. The committee may want to take that up.

We might want to explore the attitude of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, which runs the Parliament's business. It is great that the education service has provided the schools with the support that it has provided today. That service could always do with more support; it does not always get the resources that ordinary members of the Parliament would like it to have, because it could make a difference. We can take those points up.

Does Andrew Page wish to add any final comments on how he would like us to take the petition forward? We will follow it up with some of the appropriate bodies. Do you have any suggestions?

It would be good if the petition was taken forward. I hope that a subsidy is eventually achieved.

I thank all six students from the academy. We should take the chance to show our appreciation of the commitment and energy that they put into today's presentation, the research that they did to support their petition, and the fact that they handled some fairly tough and exacting questions with confidence. It worries me that I can see some future politicians emerging from the six of them. I hope that we can make progress. I ask the committee to show its appreciation of the youngsters. [Applause.]

I also thank Rob Gibson for his presence.