Chamber and committees

PE1952, on specialist services for patients with autonomic dysfunction, was lodged by Jane Clarke. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to instruct Scotland’s NHS to form specialist services training resources and a clinical pathway for the diagnosis and treatment of patients exhibiting symptoms of autonomic nervous system dysfunction, or dysautonomia.

Jane tells us that autonomic nervous system disorders are common and that they are also often a complication of long Covid. She highlights the severe impact of the condition on people’s quality of life and life expectancy. Jane says that, in Scotland, there is no clinical pathway for dysautonomia, no specialist hub to diagnose and treat patients, and no access to local or regional healthcare for most patients. She highlights challenges and referrals to specialists in England, and lengthy treatment delays and the related impacts of that on individuals, including children.

In a further submission, Jane has provided additional information and comments on the Scottish Government’s response. According to Jane, a member of the NICE expert panel on long-term effects of Covid-19 has said that Scotland does not currently follow the relevant guidance in relation to multidisciplinary doctor-led services. Jane notes that a lack of data on the prevalence of such conditions in Scotland means that there is also no data on whether services are adequate.

The Scottish Government response states that there is expertise in Scotland to manage such conditions and that, where additional expertise is required, pathways are in place to allow patients to access services in England. It also states that the clinical guideline on identifying, addressing and managing the long-term effects of Covid-19 is supported by the Scottish Government’s implementation support note, which has been circulated to all NHS health boards.

Do members have any comments or suggestions?

Thank you, Mr Stewart. As no colleagues have any other comments or suggestions, are we content to progress as Mr Stewart has suggested?

Members indicated agreement.

PE1953, on education support staff roles, was lodged by Roisin Taylor-Young. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review education support staff roles to consider: urgently raising wages for ESS across primary and secondary sectors to £26,000 per annum; increasing the hours of the working day for ESS from 27.5 to 35 hours; allowing ESS to work on personal learning plans with teachers and take part in multi-agency meetings; requiring ESS to register with the Scottish Social Services Council; and paying ESS staff monthly.

Roisin emphasises the importance of support staff, stating that they are absolutely essential to children’s education, support, care and wellbeing. She tells us that support staff are

“bitterly overworked and chronically underpaid”

and that there have been a number of equal pay claims for Scottish councils.

The Scottish Parliament information centre briefing states that classroom assistants are not required to have a professional registration currently. However, SPICe goes on to say that the Scottish Government is committed to exploring options for the development of an accredited qualification and registration programme for additional support needs assistants in collaboration with trade unions and other key stakeholders. That will result in final proposals, which are due to be brought forward by autumn next year.

The Scottish Government highlights that a pupil support staff working group has been established to consider how pupil support staff can be empowered and supported. The group is currently engaged with and seeking the views of pupil support staff on its work.

Do members have any comments or suggestions on the petition? Mr Stewart, you are stepping forward again. Thank you.

As there are no other suggestions, are members content to progress as recommended?

Members indicated agreement.

I echo those comments. The committee seems to have been discussing the issue one way or another for seven to 10 years, and the idea that we are seven to 10 years away from achieving something that has not yet been agreed is a concern.

PE1867, which was lodged by Scott Macmillan, is on establishing a new national qualification for British Sign Language. I highlight that consideration of the petition will, as we have discussed, be available to watch on the Scottish Parliament’s BSL channel.

The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to encourage the Scottish Qualifications Authority to establish a national qualification in British Sign Language at Scottish credit and qualifications framework level 2. We last considered the petition at our meeting on 4 May, when we agreed to write to the Scottish sensory hub. We now have responses from the National Deaf Children’s Society and the Scottish sensory hub.

The National Deaf Children’s Society stated its hope that BSL can be afforded similar support and status to that which the Gaelic language has received. It also highlighted that, without a national qualification, we are unlikely to see sufficient numbers of teachers choosing to develop their skills in teaching BSL.

The Scottish sensory hub noted that students currently

“earn more university entrance points for spoken language qualifications than ... for BSL”,

which it suggests results in students “reluctantly” opting for

“spoken language courses ... to maximise university entry opportunities.”

That is despite the increasing number of people who wish to take up BSL.

The Scottish sensory hub highlighted that the

“development of BSL qualification pathways and ... increased BSL fluency amongst the general population”

could have a positive impact on the wellbeing of deaf individuals and their sense of connectedness in everyday life. Any exposure that we have had to BSL has visibly demonstrated that to colleagues and the Parliament.

Do members have any suggestions for action?

Thank you, Mr Stewart. That was a comprehensive series of suggestions. If colleagues do not have anything to add, are we content to do what has been suggested?

Members indicated agreement.

You say that women might find themselves subject to prosecution under the provisions in England. Is that a hypothetical situation, or has that happened?

Good morning and welcome to the 15th meeting in 2022 of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee. We have received apologies from the deputy convener, David Torrance, who unfortunately cannot be with us this morning. However, we are joined by his substitute, Marie McNair. I am delighted to welcome her to our proceedings. Good morning, Marie, and welcome to the committee. We are also joined online by our colleague Paul Sweeney, who is participating remotely this morning.

Under agenda item 1, as this is Marie McNair’s first appearance at the committee, I invite her to make any declaration of interests that she wishes to make.

Right. Thank you very much.