Seòmar agus comataidhean

PE1873, which was lodged by Graeme Harvey on behalf of the Scottish Hypnotherapy Foundation, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to instruct the NHS to provide hypnotherapy for the treatment of mental health, psychosomatic disorders and chronic pain.

In its submission, the Scottish Government recognises that hypnotherapy may offer relief to some patients but says that it is up to NHS boards to decide which complementary and alternative medicines services are made available—good luck with that. However, the submission states that hypnotherapy does not meet the standard of evidence that is required for recommendation for use as a psychological treatment on the NHS. Similarly, on addressing chronic pain, the Government’s submission points to the Scottish intercollegiate guidelines network guideline, which states that

“No good-quality studies were identified to evaluate the efficacy of hypnotherapy”

and that further research is required.

In response, the petitioner suggests that the main issues are a lack of regulation and a lack of research. The petitioner explains that hypnotherapy is not regulated because the UK Government decided that it is a safe modality and that self-regulation should be sufficient.

Do members have any comments or suggestions? Having been on the petitions committee previously, I am always slightly suspicious when the establishment tries to close such things down on the basis that there is no evidence, because without research and trials there cannot be any evidence. I am nervous about that being the basis on which we agree to not do anything. Is there something that we could do to evidence any research?

Our final new petition, PE1886, which has been lodged by Ryan Gowran, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to establish a specialist paediatric liver centre in Scotland.

In its written submission, the Scottish Government explains that there is neither any specific highly specialised service nor the clinical expertise to deliver paediatric liver transplantation or complex paediatric hepatobiliary surgery in Scotland, due to the specialist training that is required. Therefore, NHS Scotland commissions those services from NHS England, and they are delivered at King’s College hospital in London, St James’s University hospital in Leeds and Birmingham children’s hospital. The submission notes that the reimbursement of travel and subsistence for children and their families is the responsibility of the NHS board where the child resides.

Based on available data for the past five years, the Scottish Government states that NHS Scotland’s national services division has funded an average of five children per year to be assessed and/or treated by the specialist paediatric liver services in England. It explains that such a level of need is not consistent with ensuring that the case volumes seen or treated in Scotland are adequate to sustain a safe, fully staffed, highly specialised service. We have seen that across other medical disciplines, too.

In response, the petitioner states that there are significant costs involved when supporting a family member who is being treated so far from home and that that puts more strain on families. He states that it needs to be easier for families to be reimbursed for those costs and that long-term hospital families need much better support. He argues that the recently launched young patients family fund does not provide any true form of assistance for travel to other nations.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

It is not appropriate for the committee to investigate individual cases. That is clearly stated in the guidance on submitting petitions. The evidence submitted in relation to the petitioner’s previous petition, and from the Scottish Government in relation to the current petition, does not appear to highlight any new issues meriting investigation into the level of prosecutions under sections 315 and 318 of the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003. We might want to elicit further information about what we could reasonably take forward before we invite the petitioner to speak to us.

PE1880, on awareness and practical experience of litter picking and waste separation in the school curriculum, has been lodged by Calum Edmunds, Susanna Zanatta and Tannith Diggory of Cleanup Glasgow. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make an appropriate level of daily cleaning, including litter picking and waste separation, part of the curriculum in schools.

In her submission, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills explains that the Scottish Government is committed to increasing the prevalence of learning for sustainability in the curriculum and says that the Government supports the ultimate aim of the petition. However, the Government believes that individual schools should determine the precise content of their curriculum and how it is applied to the timetable at school level.

Although the Government

“would prefer to avoid excessive prescription”,

the cabinet secretary states her intention to share details of the petition, and her response to it, with Education Scotland and Keep Scotland Beautiful to ensure that the issues that it highlights are taken into account. She will do that in the context of exploring the current programme on litter and waste management to see which aspects of it could be strengthened.

The cabinet secretary seems keen to take forward the sentiments of the petition. Do members have any comments?

I am very happy to keep the petition open and to proceed on the basis that has been suggested. Financial reimbursement is often something of an afterthought, with proper consideration not being given to the mechanisms that should be in place. When health boards take varying approaches, the process can be complicated or not, depending on the health board concerned.

PE1877, which was lodged by Alex Wallace, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide body cameras for all front-line NHS staff and paramedics in Scotland.

The Scottish Government has stated that it does not believe that bodycams would be necessary or appropriate for all front-line clinical staff as the safety risks vary considerably in different job roles. The submission highlights that the Scottish Ambulance Service has advised that the trade unions have shown no appetite for bodycams, and that attacks on paramedics in Scotland have decreased in recent years.

A feasibility study was conducted and the Scottish Government believes that the cost of the proposal would be prohibitive for health boards and would not provide value for money.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

PE1882, which has been lodged by Laura Steel, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that any person who is charged with a sexual offence against a child is remanded in custody.

In its written submission, the Scottish Government explains that the Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Act 2007 forms the basis of the current law on bail. As a result of that act, there is a general presumption in favour of bail. However, the legislation ensures that an individual could be held on remand where there is a substantial risk that they might abscond or fail to appear at court, commit a further offence or offences, interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice, or where there is any other substantial factor that appears to the court to justify keeping that person in custody.

The Government states that the general presumption in favour of bail is reversed where an individual is accused on indictment of drugs, sexual, violent or domestic abuse offences and they already have a conviction in solemn proceedings on such a charge. In such cases, the presumption is that the individual be remanded.

The Scottish Government’s submission also states that the European Court of Human Rights has developed case law that requires decisions on the remand of individuals who are accused of offences to be made on a case-by-case basis. As a result, it would not be possible for the Scottish Parliament to legislate to require that all individuals who are accused of certain offences, such as sexual offences, always be remanded in custody prior to trial.

Given that background, do members have any comments or suggestions?

PE1884, which has been lodged by Steve Gillan, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make whole plant cannabis oil available on the NHS, or to provide funds for private access for severely epileptic children and adults in cases in which all other NHS epilepsy drugs have failed to help.

In response to the petition, the chief pharmaceutical officer outlines that the regulation, licensing and supply of medicines remains reserved to the UK Government under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, and that includes the scheduling of cannabis-based products for medicinal use. The chief pharmaceutical officer states that specialist doctors across Scotland have a “clear and united view” that they would be unwilling to prescribe any CBPMs containing tetrahydrocannabinol—the longest word today—until there is clear published evidence available following a clinical trial.

The submission notes that there is currently a lack of data on dosage, toxicity, interactions and monitoring of long-term side effects. However, the chief pharmaceutical officer has been engaging with the development of clinical trials in refractory epilepsy. In addition, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care will be writing to the UK Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to see what additional leverage can be brought to bear on potential solutions, to request an update on progress with clinical trials and to ask that manufacturers of CBPMs be encouraged to participate in those trials.

Do members have any comments or suggestions?

Thank you for that. As someone who sat on the cross-party group on chronic pain, I know that there are individuals who will personally testify to evidence that they have heard or who are aware of somebody who has, under exceptional circumstances, benefited from use of the product. I ask the clerks to find out whether there is potentially a body of evidence from other countries where the use of whole plant cannabis oil may be an approved procedure. It is one of those issues on which we are told that the evidence does not exist, but it cannot exist within our own sphere. Various engagements are taking place in relation to potential trials. We should seek to find out what we can about those.

I am interested in the chief pharmaceutical officer’s assertion that there is a “clear and united view” among specialist doctors that they would be unwilling to prescribe such products. Perhaps we could pursue that a bit more, because I would like to understand the reasoning for it.

Are members happy to pursue the petition on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

That committee is already looking at the issue in detail. Does that suggestion meet members’ approval?

Members indicated agreement.