Seòmar agus comataidhean

Agenda item 2 is consideration of continued petitions. We have eight such petitions to consider.

The first, PE1862, from Rona MacKay, Angus Campbell and Naomi Bremner, on behalf of Uist economic task force, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce community representation on boards of public organisations delivering lifeline services to island communities.

This is a long-standing petition, which we last considered at our meeting on 24 January 2024, when we agreed to write to the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland, the then Minister for Transport and local authorities and community councils representing island communities.

The commissioner, although not responsible for defining what attributes might be required for those undertaking a board position, tells us that there is nothing in the “Code of practice for ministerial appointments to public bodies in Scotland” or accompanying guidance that would preclude ministers from including “island knowledge” as a requirement for board membership.

We have also received responses from the Shetland Islands Council, the Western Isles Council and Orkney Islands Council, which support the principle of adding “island knowledge” or “lived island experience” as essential criteria to the skills matrix for boards that are delivering lifeline services to island communities.

The Cabinet Secretary for Transport tells us that, although the skills matrix will vary depending on the skills of the current board membership and the specific board vacancy, on every occasion, applicants are asked

“to demonstrate a knowledge and understanding of how lifeline services affect our island communities.”

We have also heard from the cabinet secretary and her officials that more needs to be done to attract and appoint island residents to boards, with an emphasis on advertising vacancies as widely as possible.

We have pursued the aims of the petition quite well. That is the position, and there is nothing precluding those aims. The Government agrees that it still needs to try to achieve more. Do we have any recommendations for action?

Petition, PE1934, from Craig Scoular, on behalf of Greenfaulds high school rights and equalities committee, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to work with Education Scotland to develop an educational resource on gender-based violence for all year groups in high school. The resource should educate on the causes of gender-based violence and ensure that young people leave school with the tools to help them to create a safer society for women.

We last considered the petition at our meeting on 8 November 2023, when we agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills and the University of Glasgow. At that time, the cabinet secretary indicated that the gender-based violence in schools working group was expected to publish its national framework to help schools to tackle sexual harassment and gender-based violence.

The framework has been published, and the cabinet secretary has stated that the Scottish Government has committed to commissioning an independent review to establish positive practice and further areas for improvement during this parliamentary session. The submission also highlights the revised statutory teaching guidance, which includes a section to support learning and teaching on consent and healthy relationships. The Scottish Government consulted on the guidance last year and is analysing the responses.

Meanwhile, the University of Glasgow’s written submission provides details of its evaluation of the equally safe at school intervention. The aim of the evaluation is to determine whether the intervention is effective, including cost effective. Its work will take place with six schools over two years, with the full results expected in December 2026.

Colleagues, do you have any suggestions?

PE2038 calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to commission suitable NHS services for people with hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome and hypermobility spectrum disorders and to consult patients on their design and delivery. For consideration of the petition, we have been joined by our MSP colleague Michael Marra, who has taken an interest in the petition. Good morning, Mr Marra.

We previously considered the petition on 4 October last year, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government and the national services division. The Scottish Government’s response provides information about its engagement work with individuals living with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome and hypermobility spectrum disorders. The submission highlights the Government’s work on the rare disease action plan and states that officials would be happy to meet the petitioner to discuss that work further.

The national services division’s submission explains that a short-life working group that it facilitated found that

“there was a need for specific specialist expertise in Scotland to improve patient care”

but one of the reasons why that work has not progressed is that the national specialist services committee determined that

“care might be better delivered through the development of a set of clinical guidelines, a patient pathway of care or a networked community of practice.”

The response from the petitioner—Ehlers-Danlos Support UK—states:

“This is exactly what we are trying to achieve”,

but it has been informed by Healthcare Improvement Scotland that there is “not enough evidence” to support the creation of guidelines from the Scottish intercollegiate guidelines network. The petitioner has shared that NHS Wales has now

“committed to co-creating a hypermobility pathway for primary care to help GPs diagnose and manage these conditions.”

The petitioner also outlines statistics to support its view that Ehlers-Danlos syndrome and hypermobility spectrum disorders are not necessarily rare disorders, as they often go undiagnosed.

We have received a written submission from our colleague Emma Roddick, who is unable to attend the meeting. Her submission, which is available on the committee’s website, touches on her experience of living with chronic pain and the value of meeting other people who have similar experiences to her own. She acknowledges that doctors

“cannot be expected to know everything”,

but she believes that there should be

“a nationally agreed standard for pain pathways to ensure that people do not fall through the cracks”.

Before we consider what we might do next, I invite Michael Marra to speak to the committee.

Thank you very much. There were a couple of good suggestions in there.

I note that, in addition to Mr Marra and Emma Roddick, a number of our colleagues—Bob Doris, Angela Constance, Bill Kidd, Pauline McNeill, Màiri McAllan, Daniel Johnson, Martin Whitfield and Michelle Thomson—have all been engaged on the issue, so it has attracted a considerable amount of attention and concern among parliamentary colleagues.

I am happy to take forward all the suggestions that have been made. We might also want to ask about the view that the current way of moving forward might not be the best model to achieve the end result. It would be useful to put that point to the Scottish Government to see what its reaction is, because that view is obviously very clearly felt.

We will keep the petition open. There are a number of ways in which we can continue to pursue the issue. I thank the petitioner for lodging the petition and Michael Marra for joining us this morning.

We previously considered the petition at our meeting on 6 December 2023, when we agreed to write to the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health, the Stroke Association and Chest Heart & Stroke Scotland. I am pleased to say that we have received responses from all those that I have just listed, which are detailed in our meeting papers, to which I turn.

The minister tells us that work is on-going to establish existing levels of awareness of stroke symptoms and FAST, with consideration also being given to how awareness of less common symptoms can be increased. The minister also indicated that there are no plans to deviate from supporting the use of the FAST approach, though this position will be regularly reviewed based on the best available evidence.

We have also received a submission from the petitioner expressing disappointment that the Scottish Government has no plans to deviate from the FAST approach. The petitioner has also highlighted that, where clinicians are reliant on the FAST test, that can have devastating effects for patients presenting with less common symptoms, as was the case for his father.

Responses from the Stroke Association and Chest Heart & Stroke Scotland highlight the need for further research before committing to the use of the BE FAST—balance, eyes, face, arms, speech, time—approach in a new nationwide campaign.

Before I ask the committee to comment, would Mr Kerr and Mr Stewart like to address us?

Thank you very much, Mr Stewart. Mr Kerr, do you have anything that you wish to add?

I do not know whether colleagues are so minded, but this might be a petition on which we are prepared to take further oral evidence. I wonder whether we might consider convening a round-table discussion of relevant stakeholders to discuss the issues with the committee. That might include the Stroke Association and Chest Heart & Stroke Scotland. The clerks and I could agree which organisations to invite, if the committee is content to leave that task to us. We might then be able to have a more detailed discussion to tease out the issues, all of which might then put us in a stronger position as a committee to address them directly with the minister.

Are colleagues content that we do that?

Members indicated agreement.

Are we content on that basis to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.