Current Petitions

PE1108, by Tina McGeever on behalf of Mike Gray, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to consider the provision on the NHS of cancer treatment drugs to ensure equity across NHS boards on the appropriateness, effectiveness and availability of such treatments.This petition came from the powerful case, which was presented to the committee, of an individual who was seeking drug treatment from the NHS. His determination, and that of his family, was the critical factor in their success, but I would like to think that, in some small way, the Public Petitions Committee assisted with the necessary public debate involving the decision makers at health board level. For us, the petition threw up a national issue that we need to focus on, which is about what happens if a particular health board indicates that a drug is not available on the NHS, the rights of appeal that cancer sufferers have and the mechanisms that they must go through, which—given that they face potentially fatal illnesses—could jeopardise their survival. Every day and every week really matters to such people, so we need to expedite the process. Are there any strong views on how we should deal with the petition?

Yes. It was good to hear that Mike Gray's treatment is now being funded and that the payments that he has already made are being repaid.When I read some of the information that came back to us, which said that he could not appeal to have funding for the drug in question until he had been on it for a considerable amount of time, I was, if anything, even more concerned than I had been initially. I think we all remember that the petition was lodged on the basis that many people were in the same situation, so there are people who have no chance of getting treatment in the long term if they cannot fund the initial treatment.I spoke to my colleagues Margaret Curran and Peter Peacock who attended the meeting at which we first discussed the petition—unfortunately, they cannot be here today—and they were keen that an inquiry into the issue be held. Given that the Health and Sport Committee decided that it was not able to hold such an inquiry at this time, perhaps we could hold a short inquiry into how people can access such treatment and how they can make the case that receiving it would be beneficial if they do not have access to funding.The other issue is that if someone pays privately for part of their treatment, they will then be liable to pay privately for all their treatment. Some complex issues were raised. Given that areas of grave concern emerged, we cannot just let the matter go.

The case flags up a number of issues.

It is a pity that the policy committee cannot find the time in its schedule to deal with the issues that the petition raises. There might well be compelling reasons why that is the case—the Health and Sport Committee probably has a series of issues to explore. I have not looked into the detail of those circumstances.Rhoda Grant has suggested that we could do a small piece of work to interrogate some of the issues that have been raised by the petition. To my mind, three issues have been identified. The first is the equity of a situation in which, if someone has one element of their treatment paid for privately, the whole of their treatment will have to be paid for privately. The second issue is the appeal mechanism and the third is the framework in which decisions are made. Do members feel that it would be okay for us to put aside time in the future to explore those concerns? Is there broad agreement to that proposal?

Do members agree in principle that we want to explore the issue? We will send an interim letter to the health department and perhaps all the health boards, saying what has come before the committee. We are looking to do some short-term interrogative work on some of the issues, based on the discussion that we had when we discussed the petition previously. We will get the clerks to come back to us with a timeline for that work.

I have received a letter from the Health and Sport Committee, which states that it has asked the Scottish Parliament information centre to prepare a briefing on the process by which drugs are made available through the NHS and to share that briefing with our committee. The Health and Sport Committee will take up some elements of the matter in its inquiry on health inequalities, but it cannot consider the particular issue because of time constraints. Rhoda Grant, who is also a member of the Health and Sport Committee, has been asked to be a reporter to that committee on our considerations. The interplay can come through utilising Rhoda Grant's role of serving on two committees.

We can perhaps do some of the work. Rhoda Grant may want to add to that.

The Health and Sport Committee is carrying out an inquiry into health inequalities and I have asked it to bear the petition in mind in doing so. However, that is some way off. If we did some work, we could then report back to the Health and Sport Committee. A short inquiry by this committee might air some of the problems and deal with them before the Health and Sport Committee inquiry begins.

Do members agree that that liaison is okay? If so, we will put together a wee plan.Members indicated agreement.

I am conscious that we have many items on the agenda. We will take a five-minute break and then consider the next petition. We will do our best to get through as many as possible.