20 Sep 2009
9 Sep 2009
Insulin pump Therapy : Scottish Parliament speech, 3rd. September 2009
I congratulate David Stewart on continuing to bring to our attention an issue that is of great significance to far too many people throughout Scotland.
Let me welcome a number of the campaigners who are in the public gallery tonight. They include Fiona Campbell, who is from my constituency. Unfortunately, Dorothy Farquharson from my constituency, who had intended to be present, is unable to be here due to illness. The other campaigners from the west of Scotland include Martyn Cross from Barrhead—in Ken Macintosh's constituency—who is a young beneficiary of insulin pumps.
I must gently chide David Stewart on his pronunciation. In comparing where insulin pumps are available, he said that they are available in Hawaii but not in Highland, and in Houston but not in Highland. I think he meant Houston, Texas, because, as his figures showed, people who live in Houston, Renfrewshire, do not have the same access to insulin pumps, which, as Ross Finnie, Mary Scanlon, Karen Whitefield and others have said, is an absolute disgrace.
In the conversation that I had with the campaigners this afternoon, I was struck by the difference that appropriate access to insulin pumps has made to people's quality of life. Ross Finnie is right—they are not for everyone—but when they are for someone, they can make a huge difference. Fiona Campbell described to me what a huge difference having a pump has made to her—I hope that she does not mind me using her case as an example. For 20-odd years, she had to go into hospital every two to three weeks because of issues to do with her diabetes, but since she has had access to a pump she has had weeks and months when that has not been an issue.
Leaving aside the human benefit to Fiona, if the cost benefit that is associated with that relief were repeated, the benefit to the health service would be huge. It is true that an up-front investment of £2,500 to £2,700 per pump is required, but the long-term benefits to the health service are incalculable, as is the difference that use of a pump can make to the quality of life of the people concerned. The case has been made for those to whom a pump is available.
One thing about this afternoon's conversation that disturbed me is the uncertainty that still exists among clinicians. Fiona was told that it would be dangerous for her to have a pump but, now that she has used a pump on a trial basis, she has been told that it would be dangerous for her to come off it. It is clear that there is an issue for politicians and health boards to address, but that inconsistency of approach suggests that there is also an issue for clinicians.
Fundamentally, what we are looking for, as Mary Scanlon said, is a commitment to progress. The warm words of a year to 15 months ago are appreciated, but now it is time for delivery. The minister and the cabinet secretary should use their undoubted influence so that progress on the matter can be made right across Scotland.
Let me welcome a number of the campaigners who are in the public gallery tonight. They include Fiona Campbell, who is from my constituency. Unfortunately, Dorothy Farquharson from my constituency, who had intended to be present, is unable to be here due to illness. The other campaigners from the west of Scotland include Martyn Cross from Barrhead—in Ken Macintosh's constituency—who is a young beneficiary of insulin pumps.
I must gently chide David Stewart on his pronunciation. In comparing where insulin pumps are available, he said that they are available in Hawaii but not in Highland, and in Houston but not in Highland. I think he meant Houston, Texas, because, as his figures showed, people who live in Houston, Renfrewshire, do not have the same access to insulin pumps, which, as Ross Finnie, Mary Scanlon, Karen Whitefield and others have said, is an absolute disgrace.
In the conversation that I had with the campaigners this afternoon, I was struck by the difference that appropriate access to insulin pumps has made to people's quality of life. Ross Finnie is right—they are not for everyone—but when they are for someone, they can make a huge difference. Fiona Campbell described to me what a huge difference having a pump has made to her—I hope that she does not mind me using her case as an example. For 20-odd years, she had to go into hospital every two to three weeks because of issues to do with her diabetes, but since she has had access to a pump she has had weeks and months when that has not been an issue.
Leaving aside the human benefit to Fiona, if the cost benefit that is associated with that relief were repeated, the benefit to the health service would be huge. It is true that an up-front investment of £2,500 to £2,700 per pump is required, but the long-term benefits to the health service are incalculable, as is the difference that use of a pump can make to the quality of life of the people concerned. The case has been made for those to whom a pump is available.
One thing about this afternoon's conversation that disturbed me is the uncertainty that still exists among clinicians. Fiona was told that it would be dangerous for her to have a pump but, now that she has used a pump on a trial basis, she has been told that it would be dangerous for her to come off it. It is clear that there is an issue for politicians and health boards to address, but that inconsistency of approach suggests that there is also an issue for clinicians.
Fundamentally, what we are looking for, as Mary Scanlon said, is a commitment to progress. The warm words of a year to 15 months ago are appreciated, but now it is time for delivery. The minister and the cabinet secretary should use their undoubted influence so that progress on the matter can be made right across Scotland.
20 Jun 2009
25 May 2009
Scottish Parliament speech on Supporting Employment
21 May 2009
Derek Brownlee echoed John Park's comments about the human costs of redundancy.
It is right that the effect on ordinary people should be the main focus of attention in the debate.
The comments of Duncan McNeil and James Kelly concerned me.
If workers are made redundant anywhere in Scotland, they deserve the full attention of politicians, and specifically ministers, irrespective of where the companies are and who the workers' local representatives are.
I hope that ministers are not being partial in their response to redundancies, as some of the evidence that I have seen suggests.
It would be fundamentally wrong if workers who are made redundant had to pay a price for political infighting in the Parliament.
I understand that, inevitably, ministers will support members from their party on local initiatives—that is the nature of politics and I do not criticise them for it
However, no worker in the country should have a delayed response from ministers simply because they live in one area rather than another.
I hope that ministers will reflect on those comments.
Let us not have a stushie; let us just reflect on the issue and possibly change attitudes and future behaviour.
Jim Mather: Does the member acknowledge that, as part and parcel of fulfilling our responsibilities, since way back last May, we have been going round the country, running 96 sessions and talking to 5,000 people at community and industry levels? We are trying proactively to make Scotland's economy better and more effective. Will the member reflect on that?
Hugh Henry: I will reflect on that but, equally, Jim Mather needs to reflect on the criticisms from Greenock, Cambuslang, East Kilbride and other areas where there have been delays in responses from ministers.
That is unacceptable and the minister must address it.
We must plan and prepare for our future and we need to invest in our young people.
I am concerned that, in Renfrewshire in the past year, 30 apprentices have been made redundant, of whom 21 are still looking for alternatives.
The main source of apprenticeships in the construction industry has dried up.
Large companies are now often contract managers and brokers, so they subcontract rather than employ.
Therefore, we need to support small companies that can provide apprenticeships for young people.
I am thinking of companies such as MPS Training in Johnstone in my constituency, which is run by Willie Cosh. Such companies often offer young people varied and stimulating training and learning experiences that are better all round.
If we invest in those companies now, we will be paid a handsome dividend in the future.
Several members have mentioned ConstructionSkills in Scotland.
I do not want to be particularly critical of it, but we need to have an open mind, be objective and ask hard questions about its performance
Is it helping small companies?
Do they feel that it is of value?
Let us be open minded and objective in coming up with answers on what we can do and, more significantly, what we can do better.
I pay compliments to colleges throughout Scotland for their role in tackling the problem.
For example, Reid Kerr College in Paisley has an outstanding record of helping young people into training and employment. I give particular credit to the college's built environment department.
Colleges can make a difference, so we must invest in them.
Packages of employment and training need to be made available and we need partnerships that can work together closely.
We need partnerships between the private and public sectors and between schools and colleges.
ConstructionSkills in Scotland should be the facilitator for such an approach, but at this juncture, I worry whether it can do that job.
I worry that rather than preparing young people for the construction industry as it exists today, it is continuing to prepare young people for the construction industry in a world that no longer exists and in social circumstances that have moved on.
That should be a wake-up call and a challenge to us all.
Derek Brownlee echoed John Park's comments about the human costs of redundancy.
It is right that the effect on ordinary people should be the main focus of attention in the debate.
The comments of Duncan McNeil and James Kelly concerned me.
If workers are made redundant anywhere in Scotland, they deserve the full attention of politicians, and specifically ministers, irrespective of where the companies are and who the workers' local representatives are.
I hope that ministers are not being partial in their response to redundancies, as some of the evidence that I have seen suggests.
It would be fundamentally wrong if workers who are made redundant had to pay a price for political infighting in the Parliament.
I understand that, inevitably, ministers will support members from their party on local initiatives—that is the nature of politics and I do not criticise them for it
However, no worker in the country should have a delayed response from ministers simply because they live in one area rather than another.
I hope that ministers will reflect on those comments.
Let us not have a stushie; let us just reflect on the issue and possibly change attitudes and future behaviour.
Jim Mather: Does the member acknowledge that, as part and parcel of fulfilling our responsibilities, since way back last May, we have been going round the country, running 96 sessions and talking to 5,000 people at community and industry levels? We are trying proactively to make Scotland's economy better and more effective. Will the member reflect on that?
Hugh Henry: I will reflect on that but, equally, Jim Mather needs to reflect on the criticisms from Greenock, Cambuslang, East Kilbride and other areas where there have been delays in responses from ministers.
That is unacceptable and the minister must address it.
We must plan and prepare for our future and we need to invest in our young people.
I am concerned that, in Renfrewshire in the past year, 30 apprentices have been made redundant, of whom 21 are still looking for alternatives.
The main source of apprenticeships in the construction industry has dried up.
Large companies are now often contract managers and brokers, so they subcontract rather than employ.
Therefore, we need to support small companies that can provide apprenticeships for young people.
I am thinking of companies such as MPS Training in Johnstone in my constituency, which is run by Willie Cosh. Such companies often offer young people varied and stimulating training and learning experiences that are better all round.
If we invest in those companies now, we will be paid a handsome dividend in the future.
Several members have mentioned ConstructionSkills in Scotland.
I do not want to be particularly critical of it, but we need to have an open mind, be objective and ask hard questions about its performance
Is it helping small companies?
Do they feel that it is of value?
Let us be open minded and objective in coming up with answers on what we can do and, more significantly, what we can do better.
I pay compliments to colleges throughout Scotland for their role in tackling the problem.
For example, Reid Kerr College in Paisley has an outstanding record of helping young people into training and employment. I give particular credit to the college's built environment department.
Colleges can make a difference, so we must invest in them.
Packages of employment and training need to be made available and we need partnerships that can work together closely.
We need partnerships between the private and public sectors and between schools and colleges.
ConstructionSkills in Scotland should be the facilitator for such an approach, but at this juncture, I worry whether it can do that job.
I worry that rather than preparing young people for the construction industry as it exists today, it is continuing to prepare young people for the construction industry in a world that no longer exists and in social circumstances that have moved on.
That should be a wake-up call and a challenge to us all.
8 May 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
