Official Report 117KB pdf
Greater Glasgow NHS Board (Consultation) (PE453)
Agenda item 3 is our regular petitions report. The first petition is PE453, which is from Fr Stephen Dunn and calls on the Scottish Parliament to carry out a full review of the process of consultation with local communities regarding the siting of the proposed secure unit in the Greater Glasgow NHS Board area.
Like the Health and Community Care Committee, the Public Petitions Committee views the location of the secure unit as a matter for Greater Glasgow NHS Board in which we should not intervene. However, a number of MSPs, led by Paul Martin, have complained that the second scoring exercise that Greater Glasgow NHS Board conducted was unfair and preordained to select Stobhill. The Public Petitions Committee believes that the Health and Community Care Committee should check whether proper consultation was carried out or whether there was skulduggery by the health board to ensure that Stobhill became the eventual location for the secure unit. The MSPs to whom I referred take the view that the exercise was fixed and that there was not proper and fair consultation. It is for the Health and Community Care Committee to decide whether that is the case.
From reading the papers, I am aware that two members of the committee—Janis Hughes and Dorothy-Grace Elder—are mentioned in dispatches. I am sure that other members, such as Nicola Sturgeon, will have a particular interest in the petition, because it relates to Glasgow.
I was not a member of the Health and Community Care Committee when originally it discussed issues relating to the consultation that was carried out by Greater Glasgow NHS Board. However, given the input that I have made over the past three years into consultation relating to the Glasgow acute services review, as well as to secure care issues, I feel qualified to speak on the matter.
I agree. The problem of consultation—not only in Glasgow, but in Glasgow in particular—is becoming acute. People feel that consultation processes are a sham; the health board goes through the motions then does what it wants regardless. That is what people think about the Stobhill proposals and the acute services review. Leaving the substance of the issues aside, the consultation process is a matter for the Health and Community Care Committee. I would be keen for the committee to question Greater Glasgow NHS Board about the consultation process and to allow it the opportunity to explain why it thinks that that was a meaningful exercise. Once we have heard from Greater Glasgow NHS Board, it would be appropriate for the Health and Community Care Committee to take evidence from Malcolm Chisholm on the wider issue of consultation and how health boards interact with the public. It is an issue of general concern and we should address it.
I agree with all that. There is an illusion of progress, which we must look behind. I have been involved in the matter from the beginning—it began with something that seemed to be nothing. However, after the committee complained and after Richard Simpson's report, things seemed to improve in that there was better advertising of public meetings and so on. However, we are still on the same track, which was heading towards Stobhill right from the beginning. The scoring situation was so bad that councillors from beyond Glasgow walked out, never mind that the Glasgow MSPs were extremely upset.
It is nice to be back. Ironically, this is the topic that the committee was discussing when I left.
We have done some work in your absence, Ben.
Nicola Sturgeon made a good point. We should ask Greater Glasgow NHS Board and the Scottish Executive to tell us how they have followed through the recommendations of the Health and Community Care Committee's report. It sounds as though they have not pursued that. Janis Hughes was also correct. The minister set up the acute services review group to consider an overall strategy for Scotland, but we have not heard much about that over the past two years. I lodged a question asking how many times the group has met, but that is about all I know. The group is supposed to give the final say on issues such as acute services, mental health and Stobhill. If recommendations have not been implemented, ministers are entitled to say that that is not good enough and to send the health board back to the drawing board.
I suggest that we make space on our calendar to take evidence form the Greater Glasgow NHS Board and the minister.
I am happy with that.
I suggest that we also take evidence from the petitioners.
One of the issues that the background papers on the petition raise is that a number of different organisations, such as the Glasgow north action group, have been involved part of the time, but not at other points. A number of MSPs have been involved for prolonged periods and have then boycotted parts of meetings for reasons that are obvious to them, bearing in mind what they felt about consultation.
Members indicated agreement.
Aphasia (PE475)
The next petition is PE475, by Cecilia Yardley, on behalf of Speakability. The Public Petitions Committee has passed us the petition for information and recommends that we take no action on it at this time. Do members agree to simply note the petition?
Members indicated agreement.
Triple Assessment Breast Examinations (PE491)
Petition PE491, from Elaine McNeil, calls for the Scottish Parliament to take the necessary steps to introduce legislation to make triple assessment procedures obligatory for all women who present for a breast examination in clinics. The committee is not expected to take any action at this time. Do members agree to simply note the petition?
Members indicated agreement.
Victoria Hospital (PE498 and PE499)
We come to petitions PE498 and PE499. PE498 is on behalf of the Fife Health Service Action Group and PE499 is on behalf of the Dunfermline Press. The Public Petitions Committee passed both petitions to us simply to note them and take no action at this time. I believe that the Public Petitions Committee is awaiting further information.
Yes. Normally we try to get a response from the Executive before deciding what to do with a petition. However, the Health and Community Care Committee has just decided to take evidence on PE48 and PE453. Petitions PE498 and PE499 are on a similar matter in which there is massive local opposition to a decision that a health board has taken and the health board has just ignored that opposition. I wonder whether, if the Public Petitions Committee gets an early response from the Executive, we could refer the matter back quickly to the Health and Community Care Committee to form part of the evidence session.
We have made a decision on the oral evidence on the Glasgow situation. Would it be worth the committee's while to make a general call for written evidence on the wider issue of general consultation on the health service? I know that time is against us, but people might feel at this stage that they are able to make written comments about how consultation has been handled. The time frame might be very tight, but some people might be able to use it.
Members indicated agreement.
Fuel Poverty (PE123)
Petition PE123 is on behalf of the Scottish warm homes campaign. The Social Justice Committee is in the process of preparing its response to the Executive and we will in due course be sent a copy of that. That might be a better time for us to decide whether we want to add anything. Obviously, we have already had input into the Social Justice Committee's report in that we passed on the work that had already been done by Dorothy-Grace Elder and, originally, Malcolm Chisholm. Shall we return this matter to the agenda as and when the Social Justice Committee completes its report?
The consideration of the draft report is on the Social Justice Committee's agenda this morning. If the draft report is approved today, it will be too late for us to do anything about it.
My report was submitted just over a year ago, so I do not know how much of it is outdated, given the Executive's subsequent efforts.
Have we asked the Scottish warm homes campaign whether it requires anything to be done other than what the Social Justice Committee is doing? A parliamentary committee is dealing with the matter and is responding to the Executive and raising issues that were raised by this committee. I do not know what the Health and Community Care Committee could usefully add at this stage. It might be worth while simply waiting until the Executive responds to the Social Justice Committee's comments.
The main concern relates to the Executive's plans for central heating and whether it can meet its modest targets. There is some doubt about whether there will be enough workmen to meet the targets. The colleges who train such workers tell me that they are not training enough people.
I believe that those issues have been raised in the Social Justice Committee report. If they have not, we will raise them separately. Are we all agreed to keep the matter on hold until we get a response from the Executive to the Social Justice Committee's report?
Members indicated agreement.
Epilepsy Service Provision (PE247)
This petition is from the Epilepsy Association of Scotland. The Executive's response to the points that we raised on epilepsy services is expected by the end of June. On 24 April, the committee heard evidence from Epilepsy Action Scotland. On 8 May, the committee wrote to the Scottish Executive seeking clarification on a number of the points that were raised by the petitioners in their evidence. The petition is to be brought back to the agenda on 19 June. It is therefore recommended that, at this stage, we take no further action.
Organ Retention (PE283)
This petition is from the Scottish Organisation Relating to the Retention of Organs—SORRO.
Members indicated agreement.
Scottish Parliament Health Policy (PE320)
We had previously agreed to postpone further consideration of petition PE320 until September 2002, when we thought that the situation regarding the elements of the UK health service that could be affected by the World Trade Organisation's liberalisation of trade in services would be clearer to us. Are we agreed to continue with that position?
John McAllion's letter was forwarded to the European Committee. During our last visit to Brussels, the committee raised the petition with the Commission, in the context of its continuing negotiations with the WTO. We still await a response.
When the European Committee gets a response, it would be useful if you could feed that into this committee.
I have received updates from the World Development Movement. The requests for sectors to be opened up to competition should be submitted by various bodies by the end of June—I think that the European Union's list of requests has been leaked. Health services are not affected, but the WTO is asking for all kinds of services, such as telecommunications, banking, electricity generation and postal services, in other parts of the world to be opened up to competition. The key will be what other countries ask for in return. For example, if they ask for health and education services to be opened up to competition, those services will become part of the WTO's trading process.
Are you still happy for us to come back to the petition in September?
The requests have not yet been published officially—there have been leaks, but I do not know whether we can believe them.
We do not like to progress matters on the basis of leaks. Do members agree to continue our consideration of the petition?
Members indicated agreement.
Organ Retention (PE370)
PE370 is from Lydia Reid, on behalf of Scottish Parents for a Public Enquiry into Organ Retention. The same comments apply to this petition as applied to PE283, which we dealt with earlier. We are awaiting the outcome of the Scottish Executive's consultation on the findings of the independent review group on retention of organs at post-mortem. It is recommended that no action be taken at this stage. Do members agree?
Members indicated agreement.
Chronic Pain Management (PE374)
PE374 is from Dr Steve Gilbert and calls on the Scottish Parliament to act urgently to redress the underfunding of chronic pain management services. We asked the Executive for further clarification of its position on the funding of such services and I am advised that we have received a response from the minister. A copy of the response, dated 16 May, should be in members' papers. Do members want to comment on that response? Members will recall that, last week, we highlighted in our report to the Finance Committee on the budget process that further funding should be found for two areas: chronic pain management services and neurological nursing services. I ask members for guidance on how we should proceed. Do members require further clarification from the Executive?
The health professionals who are involved in chronic pain management have been e-mailing and sending letters to the cross-party group on chronic pain. They are delighted that the committee came to that decision. It is the first time that any Parliament has moved forward on the huge subject of chronic pain patients, who have been overlooked for many decades.
Would the best thing be to bring that back to a further committee meeting, with a range of questions that we might ask the health boards about what their pain services cover? We could also seek clarification from the Executive about the point that Dr Gilbert raises in point 1 of his letter, concerning the impact on other specialties.
I agree with that. We should also ask health boards what they are doing to try to improve services. The information that we have received—although it is limited—highlights an horrific postcode lottery and the fact that, in many health board areas, there has been no recent change in the quality of services that are provided. It is important to get an information snapshot of what is happening now; however, we also need to know what health boards are doing to improve the situation.
We should return to the issue and consider what questions we might want to ask health boards. You say that there has been no change. It may be that those boards have considered the possibility of change and found that they do not have enough staff available to make the change or that they have prioritised something else. It may be that they have not totally ignored the issue, but have made different decisions. We should get more information about that. We hope that the Executive will act on the recommendation that was made by the committee last week on chronic pain services. I am sure that any information that we can get from health boards will be useful to the Executive as well. We will continue to work on that issue.
Who will draw up the detailed questionnaire?
We will leave it to the clerks and the Scottish Parliament information centre to look into that. They will produce a draft for us to discuss at a future meeting and we will have the final say on the questions. If there are any questions that members want to be contained in the questionnaire to the health boards, they can e-mail the clerks and we will return to the issue at a future meeting.
There is a terrible situation whereby people from Aberdeen sometimes have to be sent to Manchester for treatment. We need reports on that.
We can ask questions that will elicit that sort of information. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (PE398)
Petition PE398 is from Helen McDade and calls on the Scottish Parliament to ask the Scottish Executive to carry out a strategic needs review assessment on myalgic encephalomyelitis and chronic fatigue syndrome. Members should have received copies of the petition. Following the publication of the English working group's report, the Executive has set up its own short-life action group on the subject. We can wait for that group's conclusions unless members have any other suggestions.
Let me fill members in on what has happened with the short-life action group—SLAG.
Careful, John.
It sounds as if it should be a short-life action group on sexual health.
The group has had only an initial meeting and progress has been slow. At the first meeting, people introduced themselves and had a general discussion about the areas that they might address. The patient representatives on the group are not convinced that the Scottish needs assessment programme that was offered by the Scottish Executive will be part of the group's agenda. They have promised to pursue the matter and I said that I would ask the Health and Community Care Committee whether I could pursue it with the Executive to ensure that the programme is on the group's agenda.
Are we happy for John McAllion to do that on our behalf? All the points that he has made are perfectly reasonable. A number of people highlighted the wider need for continuing research the last time that we debated the matter, and it would be useful if John could follow up on those questions.
Members indicated agreement.
Organ Retention (PE406)
The final petition is PE406, from Margaret Doig. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to address the omissions concerning the code of practice and the current law governing the post-mortem removal and retention of organs. We are awaiting the outcome of the Scottish Executive consultation on the findings of the independent review group on the retention of organs at post-mortem. It is recommended that no action be taken by the committee at this stage. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
On a matter that is not covered in the petitions report, I understand that the Transport and the Environment Committee has voted to send a petition on genetically modified crops to the Health and Community Care Committee. I understand that that might not yet have been received by the committee, but I ask the clerks to the two committees to sort out the matter soon, because it is important to have the matter on our agenda before the summer recess, even if that is simply for the committee to take an initial view on action that we might want to take. There is some urgency about the matter and it would be unfortunate if it were left until after the recess.
The Transport and the Environment Committee has decided to forward some papers to us. I sought clarification on the matter. That committee's action seemed to fall short of a formal referral of the petition. We are waiting to find out what the Transport and the Environment Committee wants us to do on the question of GM crops. We have not received the papers yet.
I appreciate that there are processes to be followed, but I suggest that we ask the Transport and the Environment Committee for the papers to find out what stage it has reached and what it is asking us to do, and that we put the petition on the agenda for our next meeting. We should consider the matter, as the crops are about to germinate—it is a matter of urgency. It would be a shame just to leave it.
We are expecting the papers in the next few days, so there is no reason why we cannot put the matter on to a forthcoming agenda. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
That completes the public part of this morning's business.
Meeting suspended until 10:12 and thereafter continued in private until 11:44.
Previous
Subordinate Legislation