Seòmar agus comataidhean

Welcome back. Agenda item 2 is consideration of continued petitions.

Members will recall that, at our meeting on 8 June, we held a round-table discussion that embraced four petitions related to rural healthcare. We heard from all four petitioners: Gordon Baird, Maria Aitken, Billy Sinclair and Rebecca Wymer. We also welcomed the participation of our MSP colleagues Emma Harper, Rhoda Grant and Colin Smyth.

During that round-table discussion, we heard about a range of challenges that face rural communities in accessing health services, including the distances that are involved in travelling to appointments, particularly in emergency situations. It was vividly demonstrated in a way that we, sitting here in the central belt, might more easily understand, when it was said that a journey would be the equivalent of us going to Newcastle and back for a minor check-up. That brought home the difficulties that are faced, with which we are not familiar, because of the distances that are involved.

We heard about problems in recruiting and retaining staff, which has become an issue, and we discussed how to ensure that, as new services are framed and developed, the voices of communities are properly heard, rather than new policies being imposed on them without proper consideration.

We agreed to consider at this meeting the evidence that we have heard on all four petitions. I am delighted that Rhoda Grant joins us again, in particular for consideration of PE1890, which we will come to shortly.

We considered the four petitions together, and one of the options that we were asked to consider was the potential to refer the petitions on. I will summarise the four petitions, then we will take a collective view.

We heard evidence on PE1845, which was lodged by Gordon Baird and calls on Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create an agency to ensure that health boards offer fair and reasonable management of rural and remote healthcare issues. I was struck last week by what Mr Baird said about what he felt were the inadequacies of the existing routes for ensuring that the views of rural residents are heard by decision-making bodies.

Mr Ewing tackled the question whether a single agency can manage the responsibility that could arise from issues that are common across health boards that are far flung across Scotland. Dr Baird also welcomed the Government’s commitment to establishing a national centre of excellence for remote and rural health and social care, but felt that that would address only part of the issue that he raised because, without his proposal, there would be nobody advocating for such services, as opposed to being part of their delivery.

PE1819, in which Rhoda Grant is interested, calls on Parliament to urge the Government to provide more localised training, and to find ways to recruit and retain healthcare staff in difficult-to-recruit positions. Often, communities have limited housing and other services, which means that it can be unaffordable for some people to contemplate accepting positions that are on offer.

The petitioner highlighted how technology had enabled distance and remote learning for teachers, which has supported recruitment of teaching staff to rural areas. She suggested that a similar approach be taken to training, recruitment and retention of healthcare staff to positions in rural Scotland.

Members will also be aware that Rhoda Grant secured a members’ business debate on NHS staff recruitment and retention last Thursday. As she has joined us, I invite her to contribute to our reflection before I touch on the other two petitions.

Thank you. I think that the committee agrees to refer the four petitions to the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee in the context of its wider consideration of health inequalities. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

It is worth noting that the whole process began with the previous Presiding Officer’s parliamentary commission, which I sat on and which looked at the whole question of public participation and deliberative democracy. I know that a lot of work has been done here in Parliament and by the Government in the time since.

We have a series of questions. Just last week, we had at a focus group at a deliberative democracy event in order that we could understand the issue. One of the issues that everyone will be wrestling with is the expectation that is created in the minds of people who participate that something will follow, which will be a challenge in relation to the reputation and sustainability of the concept, over time. We will touch on that later. I will start off with some technical questions, before colleagues come in.

We met the group and had a very productive and worthwhile evidence session. How did the Government decide on the composition of the group? I know that Scottish Government officials were involved; were they active and equal members of the group or were they there in a supporting and advisory role? What was the structure and how was it put together?

Thank you very much. We will come to solutions in a second or two.

The next petition is PE1915, which was lodged by Billy Sinclair. It calls on Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to reinstate Caithness County Council and Caithness NHS Board. Billy’s position is that local delivery has suffered greatly since services fell under the aegis of NHS Highland and the Highland Council. That is evidenced by the 120-mile journey to Raigmore hospital in Inverness that many expectant mothers have to contemplate. Following his evidence last week, he has provided a further written submission, of which members have a copy.

The final petition is PE1924 from Rebecca Wymer, which calls on Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to compete an emergency in-depth review of women’s health services in Caithness and Sutherland. Rebecca has stated that the services that are now being provided are in breach of basic human rights, and she is concerned that there could be loss of life due to failures in gynaecology care provision. In the wider round-table discussion, she echoed the point about it being difficult and unattractive for people to move to professional positions in Caithness due to the lack of women’s healthcare and maternity services. People who are coming from areas where those services are taken very much for granted suddenly become aware that the absence of them is potentially quite a serious issue.

I should add that the journey that I mentioned earlier was the equivalent of a journey from Edinburgh to York, not Edinburgh to Newcastle. I understated the scale of the journey that was used by way of illustration.

Rebecca, too, has provided a further written submission. It was suggested—I think by some of our MSP colleagues—that the way forward for the petitions might be for us to consider whether to refer them. Do colleagues have any thoughts on that?

Thank you for that. I also thank you and Liam McArthur for your additional forensic cross-examination of witnesses as we have progressed through the process. Although we might not all be here in five years, I hope that some of us will be—David Torrance has been here for ever—to see whether there has been any progress or any reversal of the commitments given.

The next continued petition is PE1804, on which we have taken evidence on a couple of occasions. The petition calls on the Scottish Government to halt Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd’s air traffic management strategy project. On 4 May, we took evidence from Peter Henderson, one of the petitioners, and David Avery from Prospect. We subsequently took evidence from Inglis Lyon, the managing director of HIAL.

Rhoda Grant is still with us, and I invite her to speak before we consider how we might proceed.

Thank you, minister. I have one further follow-up question.

We have discussed the nuances in relation to hernia mesh. At times, it seems that the issue has been the need for a proper explanation of options to patients. That is one of the aspects that Professor Alison Britton is looking at in her casework review with regard to the way in which women progressing through the transvaginal hernia mesh issue have been treated. Her inquiry has been going on for some time; a month or so ago, I asked a question about it in Parliament. I wonder whether you are able to offer any update on where we are with the review, as some of what Professor Britton may report might be of interest with regard to the need for patients to be properly notified and made aware of the options that are available to them.

Minister, to go back to the Cumberlege report, I note that this committee was alert to the shortcomings surrounding the MRHA regimen, and I think that all parties in this Parliament endorsed the report’s recommendations. Did I understand you to say that you believe that the discussions that are taking place in relation to the report are constructive and are progressing to a positive outcome?

David Torrance is keen to ask a supplementary question that relates to that. Some of our other witnesses might feel they can also comment on it.

We have two other parliamentary colleagues listening to the discussion today. Now that all the petitioners have spoken, they might want to comment.