Official Report 612KB pdf
Parking Charges (Community Healthcare Staff) (PE2041)
Item 3 is consideration of new petitions. As I always say, in case there are petitioners who might be watching our proceedings this morning, when a petition is lodged we initially take a view from the Scottish Government and from SPICe—the Scottish Parliament information centre. We do that because we would propose doing so at first consideration of the petition, so not having their views would only cause a delay in our consideration. It is important that we get to the meat of the argument that the petitioner is trying to advance.
The first of our new petitions is PE2041, on exempting community healthcare staff from parking charges. The petition was lodged by John Ronald. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to encourage local authorities to exempt staff working at community healthcare facilities, and who do not have access to free on-site staff parking, from on-street parking charges, to allow them to care for vulnerable and sick people in our country without it costing them thousands of pounds per year.
Mr Ronald told us that he works alongside healthcare staff who are based in community health buildings that are surrounded by parking meters, which have seen an increase in charges to around £6 per hour. Mr Ronald is concerned about the impact that that will have on community-based staff who require use of a car throughout their shifts, particularly in the context of the cost of living crisis.
The Minister for Local Government, Empowerment and Planning responded to the petition, noting that, as local authorities are responsible for setting parking charges on property that they own and for determining who is exempt from such charges, it is not a matter that the Scottish Government can intervene in. However, I argue that it is an issue on which the Scottish Government might have an opinion.
The briefing that we have received from SPICe also notes the role of local authorities in setting parking charges, as well as highlighting measures for NHS staff and volunteers to claim reimbursement for parking charges and the action that the Scottish Government has taken to abolish car parking at NHS hospitals in Scotland—which is of no use at all to the people whom we are considering here. Do colleagues have any comments or suggestions? I do not feel that, so far, we have had anything that helps that very important body of public service workers at all.
I was astonished by the replies, quite frankly. The starting point for us in our work is to look at what petitioners say and what they complain about. This petitioner says that the parking charges that he and his cohort of community healthcare workers must pay—it is not quite clear whether he is an employee or a volunteer, but maybe I have not read the information properly—have increased to £6 per hour. That means that staff pay £48 for working an eight-hour shift, which, on a five-day week, comes to £11,520 year.
I would have thought that the health minister and NHS Scotland would have commented directly on what the petitioner said, but they have not. Why not? It is absolutely baffling and completely unacceptable. The idea that the Scottish Government can pass the buck to local authorities is completely at odds with what happened in September 2008—the information that I have suggests that, at that time, the Scottish Government announced that car parking charges should be abolished at NHS hospitals.
That directly contradicts what the minister is now saying. I find it absolutely baffling that we would be asked to regard this nonsense as in any way acceptable. We have to strongly rebut the response and write to COSLA and the health minister and ask them to look again. We should ask whether it is the case that groups of health workers have to pay these extortionate charges and, if so, how on earth they can be expected to carry on in their jobs. If that is true, we will be driving people out of that kind of work. COSLA and the minister might question that evidence, which is fine, but surely the petitioner is entitled to a direct response.
Yes. Curiously, I see that our colleague Jackie Baillie is in the public gallery, as she is joining us for a later petition. Jackie and I worked together on hospital car parking charges in an earlier parliamentary session. We wrote to the then health secretary—one Nicola Sturgeon—and managed, on a joint Opposition basis, to have hospital car parking charges in NHS-owned car parks abolished. You make the point very effectively, Mr Ewing, that the Government has previously intervened on a matter that it regarded as being in the ownership of the NHS.
The key thing for me is exactly the point that you make, which is that the Scottish Government says that it is not a matter for the Scottish Government. It may not be technically a matter for the Scottish Government, but the Government can have an opinion on it and can show some sort of moral leadership or lead in relation to our evidencing the petitioner’s claim. It seems to me that we are talking about individuals who are community based and who need to use a car to get to the patients or people whom they are assisting. If they are having to pay significant car parking charges, whether that is back at headquarters or when they are with the patient, that is a disincentive to their continuing in the form of employment that they are in. Their loss would be hugely detrimental to that valuable service in the community.
I wonder whether we could also write to COSLA, the Royal College of Nursing, Unison, Unite and the Allied Health Professions Federation to see whether we can get further evidence on the statements that the petitioner has made to understand whether it is a widespread experience. I certainly think that we should go back to the Scottish Government and say, “We’d like to understand what your view is on the petition and not just to hear you argue that it’s not a matter for you.” Clearly, it would be a matter for ministers if we suddenly lost all the staff who are providing the service.
It was of concern in the good old days, convener.
Well, I am not going to lead the committee in a chorus of “Down at the Old Bull and Bush”, Mr Ewing.
Are there any other comments? Are we content to proceed on that basis?
Members indicated agreement.
I thank the petitioner very much. As he will have heard, we will be taking forward the aims of the petition.
Gender Theory in Schools (PE2043)
PE2043, which has been lodged by Philipa Jackson, is on changing the way in which gender theory is presented in schools. As you will recall, we considered a similar—though not exactly the same—petition just a moment ago. The petition has been lodged to urge the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to redefine the relationship, sexual health and parenthood—or RSHP—lessons pertaining to transgender and not present the information as fact.
The SPICe briefing note that has been prepared states that Scotland does not have a statutory curriculum, as we know. It also notes that the Scottish Government was consulting on draft statutory guidance on the delivery of relationship, sexual health and parenthood education to replace the guidance currently in place.
The Scottish Government’s response states that it has accepted the recommendations made by the LGBTI inclusive education working group. Of the teaching resources available for RSHP, one resource contains a lesson on being transgender and is intended for primary 5 to primary 7. The resource asks young people to think about what transgender means and aims to challenge the stereotypes and prejudices that can lead to transphobic bullying. The response also notes that the content of the RSHP resource was informed by more than 1,000 primary and secondary teachers and was piloted in 38 schools.
The petitioner’s written submission expresses the view that children are being taught an ideology that she is deeply concerned about, as she finds the current teaching to be age inappropriate and extremely graphic. She believes that some of the people involved in creating the RSHP resource are very biased, and she states that adults should not be coercing children to think that they can be the opposite sex.
Those are the comments that we have received from SPICe and the petitioner. Do members wish to suggest any options for action that we might take forward?
I wonder whether the committee will consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government is clear that guidance to support transgender young people in schools is needed and that it has accepted the LGBTI inclusive education working group’s recommendations on that approach to inclusive education.
I do not oppose that proposal, as it is very clear that the Scottish Government is not going to change its practice. However, I want to record my full support for the petitioner’s views in every respect.
Given the Scottish Government’s very clear guidance—and noting Mr Ewing’s comments, which I expect might be more widely shared—are colleagues content to close the petition, even though it is a new one, given the direction that we have received?
Members indicated agreement.
I thank the petitioner for lodging the petition. As I hope that you will understand, the response from the Scottish Government means that there is little scope for the committee to pursue the petition further. On that basis, we will close it.
Stillborn Babies (Birth Certificates) (PE2046)
PE2046, which has been lodged by Debbie-Ann McMillan, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to enable a birth certificate to be issued in respect of any baby stillborn after 20 weeks of pregnancy. I note that Clare Haughey, who I imagine is the MSP for the petitioner concerned, is in the gallery to observe the proceedings.
A stillbirth is defined in legislation as a child who had issued forth from its mother after the 24th week of pregnancy and which did not breathe or show any other sign of life, and that definition reflects the view that a baby born at 24 weeks or over is capable of surviving. The Scottish Government’s submission indicates that a change to 20 weeks would impact on that and other legislation, including the limit of 24 weeks for most terminations of pregnancy. The Scottish Government therefore has no plans currently to introduce primary legislation to change the 24-week threshold to 20 weeks.
The Scottish Government’s response to the petition outlines the current approach to registering a stillbirth, with the Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Scotland) Act 1965 making provision for both a birth register and a separate stillbirth register. It also notes that recording stillbirths as births could have wider implications about the legal personality of an unborn child.
The Government has stated that it does not plan to make changes to the way in which stillbirths are registered. It notes that, as part of the recent launch of a memorial book for those who have experienced a pregnancy or baby loss prior to 24 weeks, applicants will be given a commemorative certificate, which is intended to give recognition and comfort to those who want to record their loss.
I imagine that most members of the committee will know people who have experienced the matters addressed in the petition, but I think that there has been very clear direction from the Government in relation to potential consequential impacts, were the change to be made via primary legislation.
Do members have any suggestions or comments?
In light of the evidence that the Government has given to the committee on the impact of the legislation, would the committee consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government has no current plans to bring forward primary legislation to change the 24-week threshold for registering a stillbirth to 20 weeks, and it does not plan to make any changes to the requirement for separate registers of stillbirths and births?
I think that the Government’s argument in relation to the termination of a pregnancy at 24 weeks would have to be the primary source of any debate from which a consequential action would arise, were any change such as the one that the petition seeks to establish to be made at some point. However, I understand the Government’s concern that moving on that area first could have consequential impacts on the legislation that might not be intended by the petitioner. For those reasons, I agree that the proposal to close the petition is the correct one. Are colleagues content with that proposal?
Members indicated agreement.
FAST Stroke Awareness Campaign (PE2048)
Our penultimate petition this morning is PE2048, on reviewing the FAST—face, arms, speech, time—stroke awareness campaign. The petition, which was lodged by James Anthony Bundy, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to increase awareness of the symptoms of stroke by reviewing its promotion of the FAST stroke campaign and ensuring that awareness campaigns include all the symptoms of a potential stroke.
I should say that Mr Bundy is known to members of the Scottish Conservative Party as someone who has worked in our corridor and whose father died because of a stroke. I gather that his mother is with us in the room as we consider the petition.
We are also joined by our MSP colleagues Alexander Stewart and Jackie Baillie for consideration of the petition. Mr Stewart is back for his first visit to us since he withdrew his patronage of our committee, and Jackie Baillie is, of course, a very familiar and regular attendee and campaigner on behalf of constituents who have petitions before us. I should also note that we have received a written submission from Sandesh Gulhane MSP in support of the petition.
James Anthony Bundy lodged the petition after losing his father to a stroke that went undiagnosed, as his symptoms did not fall within the parameters of the FAST assessment. The family are now raising awareness of all the symptoms of stroke, which can also include an inability to stand, cold sweats, vision problems, nausea and vomiting.
The SPICe briefing that we have received refers to a 2021 systematic review of evidence that noted that the less commonly used BE FAST—balance, eyes, face, arms, speech, time—test identified more ischaemic strokes than the FAST test and that that test may play an important role in the diagnosis of strokes.
In responding to the petition, the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health noted that the Scottish Government published its refreshed stroke improvement plan in June and that, in priority 2 of that plan, the Scottish Government has committed to establishing the current degree of public understanding of the symptoms of stroke and whether certain at-risk groups require different messaging.
We have also received a submission from the petitioner, which provides further detail of his family’s experience and the difference that the use of the BE FAST test might have made. In doing so, he calls for an immediate and urgent review of the existing stroke awareness campaign to help to ensure that every individual who has experienced a stroke receives the timely care that they deserve.
The petition is an important one. Before we as a committee consider it further, would our two parliamentary colleagues wish to comment on it?
Good morning. It is a pleasure to be back among you but, for the first time, on the other side of the table. In the previous parliamentary session, I was a co-convener of the cross-party group on heart disease and stroke.
I would like to speak in support of James Bundy’s petition on the review of the FAST stroke awareness campaign. I commend James and his family for the fantastic work that they have done to date in bringing this petition to the Parliament and highlighting where we are.
The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament
“to urge the Scottish Government to increase awareness of the symptoms of stroke by reviewing its promotion of the FAST stroke campaign, and ensuring that awareness campaigns include all the symptoms of a potential stroke”.
There were 11,055 reported strokes in Scotland in 2022, which is an increase on 2021. The latest data from the year ending 31 March 2022 reported 3,836 deaths in which cerebrovascular disease, including stroke, was the underlying cause. The current test that is used to assess patients who are suspected of having suffered a stroke is, as we have heard, the FAST test. Although that test can identify most strokes, patients can also present with other less common symptoms. The crux of the petition is those less common symptoms that can occur in some individuals and which can, unfortunately, mean misdiagnosis or delays in treatment. That was very much the case for Mr Tony Bundy, who died at the age of 53.
As you said, convener, in 2021, a systematic review of evidence found that the FAST test accurately detected 69 to 90 per cent of strokes but that, crucially, the test missed up to 40 per cent of posterior circulation strokes, such as the ischaemic stroke that Mr Bundy suffered.
That issue has also been identified by the national advisory committee for stroke, which stated the importance of education for health professionals, including in circumstances where there is a negative FAST test. That is what we are talking about here: education is required for the professionals who deal with these situations.
I firmly endorse the calls from James Bundy and his family for a review of the FAST test, an evidence session with the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee and a debate in the chamber in the future. That would help the family to see how the process is moving forward, because it is clear that, in this circumstance, the test was not fit to identify a stroke. It is important that we address that for the future.
I commend and congratulate the Bundy family on the petition following their terrible loss. They wish to support others in that situation so that this will not happen to other families. I support the petition and I am delighted to be here.
Convener, you and Mr Stewart have covered most of the detail of what I was going to say, but I will emphasise a couple of points. We would all acknowledge that FAST is a very good awareness programme for stroke, but it could be even better, and that is the essence of the petition. I have to say that the petition is simply common sense, and I am not sure why the Scottish Government is not doing this.
We heard why James Bundy brought the petition to us, and it is a matter of regret that his father died in the way that he did. As we have heard, 40 per cent of ischaemic strokes are simply not captured, and symptoms such as vomiting, blurred vision, confusion and lack of balance should be included in an extended FAST awareness campaign. Convener, you referred to BE FAST, with BE covering balance and eyes.
Therefore, I ask the committee to urge the Scottish Government to conduct a wider review of the FAST approach. We recognise the good work of the FAST campaign but, if we are missing up to 40 per cent of ischaemic strokes, surely the Government should be open to changing the campaign to include more symptoms.
The minister’s response misunderstands that point, but I ask the committee to encourage her to build on the solid foundations of FAST but extend it to include more symptoms so that we can save more lives. I am sure that everybody would sign up to that objective.
11:00
Thank you.
The petition is important, and I applaud James Anthony Bundy and his family for the work that they have done in lodging it. As Jackie Baillie was, I was struck by the fact that the taking and promoting of the fairly straightforward action that is proposed could make a material difference. I think that we will certainly want to go back to the minister, but I wonder whether members have suggestions about action that we might take in the interim period.
I wonder whether the committee would consider writing to the Stroke Association and Chest Heart & Stroke Scotland to seek their views on the action that the petition calls for. The committee could also write to the Scottish Government to seek clarification on what consideration has been given to using the BE FAST model to help to raise awareness of the symptoms of strokes.
I would very much like us to pursue that with the minister. In many respects, I would like to think that we could embrace the language of Jackie Baillie, in that what is being called for seems to be common sense. If the Government has considered adopting the BE FAST model and has chosen not to, I would like to know what reasons it had for coming to that conclusion, because I think that that would further assist us in considering how we might pursue the issues raised in the petition.
I thank James Anthony Bundy for lodging his important petition. We will keep the petition open and will return to our consideration of it at a subsequent date once we have received the information that we have requested. I thank our parliamentary colleagues for joining us.
Migrant Accommodation (Buffer Zones) (PE2049)
Our final petition for consideration this morning is PE2049, on the introduction of buffer zones outside migrant accommodation, which has been lodged by Gilliane Petrie. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce buffer zones outside migrant accommodation to prevent anti-immigrant groups from gathering in those spaces and to help to protect occupants, including asylum seekers and refugees, from harassment and intimidation.
The petition has been prompted by concerns about demonstrations taking place outside hotels that are being used to temporarily house refugees and asylum seekers. The petitioner has provided examples of demonstrations that have targeted accommodation in Erskine and Elgin.
In her response to the petition, the Minister for Equalities, Migration and Refugees highlights the Scottish Government’s previous engagement with the petitioner and the need to establish a clear definition of migrant accommodation. She also notes that consideration would have to be given to the purpose, risks and benefits of creating buffer zones. Given the complexity of those issues, which I imagine are considerable, the minister has asked officials to undertake an initial scoping of the potential feasibility of the petitioner’s ask.
The minister also notes the existing powers that are available to Police Scotland to deal with any serious disorder arising from public assemblies, and she encourages anyone who has experienced or witnessed any form of harassment or hate crime to report it to the police.
Do members have any comments or suggestions?
I wonder whether the committee would consider writing to the Scottish Refugee Council, JustRight Scotland, COSLA, Police Scotland and the Mears Group to draw their attention to the Scottish Government’s initial view, and to seek their views on the action that is called for in the petition.
Are members content for us to do so?
Members indicated agreement.
?
Thank you very much. That concludes the public part of our meeting. Our next meeting will take place on Wednesday 20 December. We now move into private session to consider items 4 and 5, as we agreed to do earlier.
11:03 Meeting continued in private until 11:11.Air ais
Continued Petitions