TRACKER
A complete round up of all forthcoming parliamentary business
Telephone 0131 272 2114
editor@holyrood.com
statistics from the Royal College of General Practitioners. “People with chronic pain consult their general practitioner around fi ve times more frequently than those without chronic pain, and chronic pain is a presenting condition in around 22 per cent of GP consultations. A total of 50 per cent of GP visits are for either pain or mental health issues,” she added. Scanlon said she had been “surprised” to learn that more than twice as many people in the UK are affected by chronic pain as those who are affected by heart disease, which she said can lead to long-term absences from work, accruing a signifi cant cost to the UK economy. “If economic growth is our number one priority, surely we need to ensure that patients suffering pain are treated appropriately and given the opportunity to stay in work or return to work. Scotland has a reputation for parking people on methadone, antidepressants and, now, painkillers when other options could be tried if patients only got the chance.” Retiring Liberal Democrat MSP Jamie
Stone refl ected on what impact the journey to seek treatment south of the border must have on patients. “The thought of chronic pain sufferers having to endure a four-hour or seven- hour vehicle journey each way is almost unthinkable. The journey itself and the discomfort of sitting in a vehicle for that length of time can only make the condition worse.” He called for MSPs to “support
absolutely” Scanlon’s motion and consider what more could be done locally, stressing the potential role telemedicine could play.
“By delivering advice and treatment
for chronic pain at least partly via telemedicine, we could kill two birds with one stone, to use my surname. We could do something locally and we could help people. There is a great opportunity in using telemedicine to do that.” In his last speech to Parliament, SNP
MSP Dr Iain McKee said that an audit of chronic pain and other conditions is “desirable”. “Although I do not know offhand the number of Scottish patients involved, the fi gures in the motion regarding costs and so on imply that they constitute a tiny percentage of the 20
66 Holyrood 28 March 2011
per cent who experience severe chronic pain in Scotland. If that is so, the establishment in Scotland of a similar centre to the one in Bath would be a very expensive way to deal with the problem—an argument that holds little water with people who are in severe pain, as I can perfectly understand— and, which is much more important, it almost certainly would not deal with enough referrals a year for its staff to maintain the expertise that is needed for such a centre to be successful,” he said.
“Cross-border traffi c goes two ways:
English patients come to Glasgow for paediatric extracorporeal membrane oxygenation—ECMO treatment. I would have hoped that a good unionist such as Mary Scanlon would see the benefi ts of that sort of co-operation.” Responding to the motion, Public Health Minister Shona Robison said: “[The] crux of the matter is that Scottish clinicians who are responsible for pain management take the view that a small number of patients, mainly adolescents, can benefi t from the service at Bath.” Fewer patients are being referred to Bath than was previously the case, she argued, adding that this may be a refl ection of the ability of chronic pain services in Scotland to manage patients. She added: “I hope that as services in
Scotland improve, fewer referrals to Bath will be required. Ultimately, however, if a clinician thinks that Bath is the most appropriate place for treatment, we must accept that judgment.”
Double Jeopardy Bill debate
22 March 2011 By Ross Reid The Double Jeopardy Bill, which scraps
the rule preventing a person standing trial twice for the same crime, passed through Parliament. Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill said
the Bill achieves a “careful balance” and weighs up the rights of the accused and the broader rights of victims. He added: “It upholds and enshrines
the ancient principle of double jeopardy and restates it comprehensively and in modern terms. “The legislation provides for some
strictly limited exceptions in which there is a clear and compelling case for a new trial. In short, it will - as it should - permit a trial tainted by threats or corruption to be re-run. It will allow a new trial when evidence, such as an admission or DNA material, emerges, demanding a new look at the case - the public expect no less. “It will also clarify the rules that apply when a victim dies after a trial for assault. “I am pleased that the reforms in the Bill have near-unanimous support.” Richard Baker (Lab) said: “Considering
that we are talking about a change to 800 years of Scots law, I admit to having some reservations about the fact that the debate is only a short one. “However, I concede that the Stage 2
consideration of the Bill was notable for its high degree of consensus. “The Labour Party, too, was keen that
the law should be changed before the end of this parliamentary session. We believe that victims and families who have not seen justice served should not face further uncertainty or wait longer for a change in the law. We welcome our being able to pass this law today. “The change that is represented by the Bill maintains the correct balance between the rights of an accused and those of a victim of crime. The Bill reconfi rms the principle of double jeopardy in statute, while ensuring that in future there can be new proceedings against the accused in exceptional cases in which there are clear reasons for believing that justice was not done in the original trial.” Robert Brown (Lib Dem) added: “It is
right that the rare cases in which a jury or a magistrate is nobbled and in which proceedings have been tainted because they have been undermined by illegality should be regarded as null and able to be started again. “No great exercise of legal reasoning is needed to support that proposition.” But, he added: “What has perhaps been more diffi cult to deal with is new evidence or admissions - perhaps even bragging - by the accused. In the case of a serious and appalling crime, there would – rightly - be public outrage if major new evidence, such as a new witness, the discovery of a body or compelling DNA evidence, could not be used and if a potentially dangerous criminal was allowed to walk the streets.
“I disagreed with the wide approach
to new evidence and particularly to admissions evidence. The Cabinet Secretary was right to restrict the new- evidence exception to cases that were taken on indictment in the High Court, but it would have been desirable to deal with admissions in the same way, as I suggested at Stage 2.” Cathie Craigie (Lab) said it was right
the justice system changed with the times. Mike Pringle (Lib Dem) added: “I
congratulate the rest of the Justice Committee, which has - along with the minister - guided the Bill through its various stages and scrutinised it extremely closely. “Today is the result of that scrutiny.
Between them, the committee and the minister have produced an extremely solid Bill.” Bill Aitken (Con) said: “How could we, as politicians, explain to the public that people who walk free can remain free after they have admitted committing serious crimes or if their acquittals are found to have been tainted as a result of jury nobbling or coercion? “We could not explain that away and it is therefore perfectly correct that the Government and the Parliament seek to change the law.” MacAskill concluded: “The reform
will allow the fruits of new techniques and advances in science - which are spectacular - to be used to the utmost effect. “It will allow justice to be done and
to be seen to be done, and will deliver what victims want. That is the obligation on everyone who has the privilege of serving in this chamber. “I once again thank all those members who have been involved - in particular those who will not be returning - for their service, not only in relation to the Bill but in relation to the chamber, their constituents and the country.”
Forced Marriage Bill, Stage 3 debate
22 March 2011 By George Thomson The Minister for Housing and
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80