Contents
- Attendance
- New Petitions
- Continued Petitions
Continued Petitions
Primary Hyperparathyroidism (PE1726)
The first continued petition is PE1726. The petition, which was lodged by Fiona Killen, calls on the Scottish Government to raise awareness, particularly among general practitioners and other medical practitioners, of the symptoms, diagnosis and effective treatment of primary hyperparathyroidism, or PHPT, caused by adenoma; provide access to minimally invasive surgery in Scotland for the treatment of the condition; and provide funding for research into PHPT caused by adenoma.
The petition was last considered by the committee on 20 February 2020. At that meeting, the committee agreed to write to the Scottish Government, and a response has been received. The petitioner was invited to respond to the Scottish Government’s submission, but no response has been received. Our letter to the Scottish Government requested details of the work that it is undertaking, beyond the published National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines, to increase awareness of PHPT; of whether it will help to initiate a survey for GPs to assess current understanding of the condition, in order to set up a standard management protocol and a learning module; and of whether it will provide funding for research into PHPT caused by adenoma. The Scottish Government’s response outlines the range of work that is currently being undertaken in those areas, which is summarised in the clerk’s note.
It is an interesting argument, and we have wrestled with it before. To what extent do conditions that are not well known get the attention that they deserve? To what extent does the system respond to issues that have been flagged up by the petitioner?
I am not sure whether we can do further work in relation to the petition, but the idea has struck me that neither the Scottish Government nor NHS Scotland can commission research, because it is for other people to propose it. I feel that something more proactive than that should be possible. I am interested in members’ views on whether we should close the petition or whether we might want to explore other issues.
I thank the petitioner for bringing the petition to the committee and highlighting the points around the petition, because it has got the Scottish Government to listen to those points. The Scottish Government is undertaking work, through NICE guidelines, to raise awareness of PHPT caused by adenoma. It is also highlighting PHPT as a topic for NHS Education for Scotland to explore, and it is open to applications for funding via the chief scientist office.
The Scottish Government is trying to accommodate everything that the petitioner has called for, so I am happy to close the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders.
The Scottish endocrine interest group has agreed to explore how health boards can raise awareness of the condition, and David Torrance is right that NHS Education for Scotland is working with the endocrine clinical community to consider how a digital platform could enable more real-world assessment of the condition. That work is very interesting.
I am not sure where else we can take the petition as a committee. We need to see how the work progresses. If we agree to close it today, the petitioner has the option to come back in a year’s time, if they believe that those actions are not being progressed as they would like. I agree to thank the petitioner and close the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders.
Like you, convener, I was worried about the research aspect. Research proposals are welcome, and there is no strategy for achieving that research. It is a very self-indulgent process for academics or whatever. It is far too random. On the other hand, in the context of this petition, I am not sure how we can progress that particular issue. I guess that closing the petition is the only thing to do. If the petitioner feels strongly about the research part, they can address it in another petition, which might be useful.
I agree entirely with what Tom Mason has said. I know someone who has this condition, and I have seen its serious effects. Although I am reluctant to close the petition, I do not see what more we can do. At least we have the comfort that the Government is looking at the issue and, through the NHS, is working with the appropriate society for this condition. It is important that the work of the metabolic and endocrine research network is continued. Like Tom Mason, I am concerned about whether delays caused by the Covid-19 pandemic are holding things up.
If the petitioner does not feel that any progress has been made in the months to come, she is free to lodge another petition. Of course, as Tom Mason suggested, she is also free to lodge another petition highlighting the research part of the issue.
With those issues in mind, I agree to close the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders.
I think that there is agreement that will close the petition. We recognise that this is an important issue and that there has been progress. We want to ensure that that progress is continued despite the challenges of the current situation in which we find ourselves. Further, we flag up to the petitioner that, in a year’s time, it will be possible to lodge a further petition on the issue or, as has been suggested, to lodge a petition that deals more specifically with research. We thank the petitioner for engaging with the committee and for raising this important issue on behalf of everyone who has the condition.
Allergy Care Legislation (Nurseries and Schools) (PE1775)
The next continued petition for consideration is PE1775, lodged by Catrina Drummond. The petition calls on the Scottish Government to pass legislation that will make an allergy care policy statutory for every nursery and school and to establish for nursery and school staff appropriate standards of medical training, education and care for children with anaphylaxis. Responses have been received from the Scottish Government, COSLA and the petitioner.
The committee asked the Scottish Government whether staff should have a statutory responsibility to undertake the training that the petitioner suggests as part of their overall training, and whether a consistent approach is being applied across Scottish local authorities on this issue.
The Scottish Government states that it does not intend to introduce a statutory requirement for mandatory training, as it believes that there is sufficient provision through the legislation on the provision of emergency medication and through specific guidance.
COSLA’s response states that every local authority has detailed guidance for each school, which is informed by the Scottish Government’s guidance.
The petitioner has responded to COSLA and the Scottish Government, and states that the guidance is not sufficient, that implementation is poor and that there is a lack of clear training arrangements or funding, resulting in ad hoc policies and procedures. She recommends that school training should be Government led, so that it becomes widely available and mandatory for all schools and creates a less stressful and pressured situation for school staff.
I think that the policy is probably right, but the petitioner is telling us that the policy is not her lived experience. She is concerned that there is not sufficient understanding in our childcare settings of how to deal with a child with anaphylaxis. When I was a teacher—which is a long time ago—I was well aware of the lack of awareness of how teachers should respond to some kind of medical crisis. There is a working assumption that there will be a designated first aider within every education setting, but do they have the information around the treatment of these conditions and how confident are they that they would be able to handle the situation? I am also conscious that the petitioner flags up that there is a focus on EpiPens and so on, but that is only one small part of the petition.
There are a few questions to do with the petition that we might still want to ask, because anaphylaxis can be very frightening in any circumstances, but I imagine that that is particularly the case in a classroom or a nursery if people feel that they do not have sufficient knowledge of how to respond.
What we have here is a prime example of the fact that, unfortunately, having procedures and policy in place does not necessarily mean that they will be followed and implemented in every setting in which they should be. In fact, that is more than unfortunate—it is actually dangerous. In some situations, it could mean the difference between life and death.
I think that the convener is right. Given that the petitioner has first-hand knowledge of the situation and that she states that implementation is poor, there is a lack of training and the policy is not being followed, I believe that we are duty bound to follow that up with the Scottish Government. The petitioner also cites the recent inquest into the sad case of a young person’s death, following which several recommendations were made, and I would like us to hear from the Scottish Government on that, too. It would be advantageous for us to reference that and to seek a direct response from the Scottish Government.
I agree with Gail Ross. It is very important that people have confidence in their ability to deal with such cases in their own working time. If they do not have such confidence, they will not do what is necessary, even if they have the knowledge. It is essential that people have the necessary confidence.
We need to know how well the policy is being implemented throughout the various organisations in which it needs to be implemented. Therefore, at this stage, it is important that we request more information from the Government on the matter.
I must declare an interest, in that my wife is trained in how to administer anaphylaxis treatment in her primary school. It has an equipped and trained first aider, but although training certainly seems to be provided in the Argyll and Bute Council area, there is an inconsistency of approach—different levels of training are provided across the Scottish local authorities.
I agree with other members. We should do some more digging into the issue and seek consistency across the local authorities.
I agree with my colleagues. We should write to the Scottish Government to ask about the points that have been raised by the petitioner.
We think that it would worth while doing a bit more testing of the Scottish Government’s position, so we will write to it to ask it to respond to the variety of points that have been made by the petitioner and committee members about the question of confidence and the need for people to be able to take the right approach if they are faced with such circumstances. Once we have received a response from the Scottish Government, the petitioner will be able to make a further response.
The committee agrees to write to the Scottish Government to pursue the issues that have been raised in our discussion.
Dog Theft (PE1776)
Our next continued petition for consideration is PE1776, “Dogs are not inanimate objects”, by Maryann Parry-Jones. The petition calls on the Scottish Government to change the classification of dogs from inanimate objects to sentient beings for the purposes of legal action on dog theft.
We have received a response from the Scottish Government, but no response has been received from the petitioner. The Scottish Government’s response explains that although dog or pet theft is not a specific criminal offence in Scots law, the existing common-law offence of theft would include the theft of a pet. Therefore, the theft of a pet would mean that the maximum penalties could be imposed, with the highest level of sentence being life imprisonment. That being the case, the Scottish Government has no specific plans to introduce new legislation at this time.
This is another petition that raises important issues about animal welfare and the rights of animals.
I find the Scottish Government’s argument quite convincing. If somebody stole a pet, that will be taken seriously. It will be regarded as a serious matter and it could end up in the criminal courts. I am interested to hear the views of other members, but I wonder whether we can take the petition any further.
11:15
I have an interest to declare in that I have a 45kg pet who already thinks he is a people and I do not want him to be confirmed as such. The Government has clearly stated that the theft of such pets is a criminal offence and there is sufficient penalty for doing so. It is clear enough.
What does not happen enough are prosecutions: they do not always take place when they should do. As in many situations, we have the mechanism, but we do not apply it nearly enough.
Closing the petition at this stage, on the understanding that the Government is doing enough already, is okay by me.
I agree with my colleague Tom Mason on all the points that he makes. I also own a dog and he is a valuable member of the family.
There is sufficient law there; it is about its application and how it is operated. There are sufficient effective safeguards to cover to cover dog theft. It is a question of putting the law into effect.
I propose that we close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis of what I have said.
I also have two dogs in my household, and they are greatly loved by the family, but I also think that the law covers the theft of dogs. I am therefore quite happy to close petition.
Until May of this year, I would have been totally left out, having only four cats and a bearded dragon, but I am also now a dog owner so I completely understand where the petitioner is coming from.
The Scottish Government’s response has covered the petitioner’s points and I am pleased to see that quite stiff penalties will be imposed for dog theft. I am therefore happy to close the petition.
I am feeling completely left out as I have no pets of any sort whatsoever, although my family has had dogs in its time. That does not mean that I am completely without empathy, I hope.
There seems to be agreement among the committee members that we recognise the importance of the issue, but we are satisfied with the Scottish Government’s response that the theft of a dog is regarded as an offence, and potentially a serious offence. We therefore agree to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders.
We thank the petitioner for their engagement with the committee.
School Curriculum (British Sign Language) (PE1777)
The final continued petition for consideration is PE1777, which calls on the Scottish Government to introduce British Sign Language into the curriculum for excellence, and was lodged by Scott Macmillan. The petition was last considered in January 2020. Since that meeting, the committee has received written submissions from the Scottish Government and the petitioner.
In his written submission, the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills confirms that BSL can already be part of the curriculum in schools as the second additional language, or L3, being taught.
In his response, the petitioner states that BSL should be an essential language to learn. He therefore suggests that the Scottish Government should consider designating BSL as a first additional language—L2—which can be taught from P1.
The petition is really interesting. Ever since I was young, it has seemed to me that we should all be taught how to speak to people who use British Sign Language and that it should be much more universally understood. The Parliament has already made progress in legislating in that field and I find the argument quite compelling that, as the petitioner suggests, BSL should be a first additional language. I found it to be an important argument that relates to the issue of access and people’s ability to engage completely in their communities.
I welcome members’ comments.
I am certainly of a mind to keep the petition open. I know people who have a deafness issue, and I think that it is important that we write to the Scottish Government to ask it to consider designating British Sign Language as an L2 rather than an L3 additional language under its one plus two approach. We should write to the Scottish Government to seek further information to push forward on the petition.
I fully support what Maurice Corry has said. We should write to the Scottish Government to ask if it will consider designating British Sign Language as an L2 rather than an L3 language. I am happy for the committee to do that.
Gail Ross is next.
I will now sign “Thank you” in British Sign Language, convener, as I have actually been learning some BSL during lockdown. It was one of the things that I challenged myself to do and it has been extremely interesting and challenging.
I agree that we should write to the Scottish Government. For the life of me, I cannot see a reason why BSL is designated as an L3 rather than an L2 language, and I would like to get an explanation of that and push for it to be included from a very early age.
Thank you, Gail—I am glad to see that somebody used lockdown more productively than I perhaps did.
Sign language is important. However, I can see some problems with the various dialects within the language. That causes problems even across the UK, let alone on an international basis. However, bringing British Sign Language up the league to L2 should be considered and a discussion with the Government about that would be worth while. Therefore, we should write to the Scottish Government to that end.
Obviously, challenges of dialect are not unique to British Sign Language. In many areas of development in language, it is about how a language is lived as well as how it is taught in some circumstances.
I think that the committee is agreed that there is an issue and that we will write to the Scottish Government simply to ask whether it will consider redesignating British Sign Language in recognition of the fact that it is an important part of communication for many people. We look forward to receiving a response. The petitioner will of course be able to comment on any submission from the Scottish Government.
We have reached the end of our consideration of petitions. I note that my technology has managed to stick with it for the whole meeting and that I have not dropped out of the system—whether that is for good or ill, it is progress for me. I thank everybody, including the petitioners, for their engagement with the committee and I thank broadcasting and the clerks for facilitating the challenging work of a virtual committee meeting.
Meeting closed at 11:23.Previous
New Petitions