Seòmar agus comataidhean

I agree with that. I do not know whether it is easy to define in law at what point estrangement takes place. I do not know whether that is clearly defined in legislation, so that might be the complexity that arises from the petition.

Notwithstanding the Scottish Government’s submission, I think that it would be appropriate to take further evidence directly from stakeholders in the sector, particularly taxi drivers. I understand from my casework that there are significant problems of lack of sufficient support and that that has led to the exit of a significant number of drivers from the sector, which, in turn, is having a substantial impact on the availability of taxis in Scotland’s major cities and towns. On that basis, it would be worth conducting further investigation and seeking further submissions from relevant taxi owner associations and the relevant trade union branches.

I do not find the Scottish Government’s response remotely convincing. There are extensive means by which ministers in Scotland can exert influence on the bus sector to change its practices, given the significant level of public funding that the sector enjoys, which is vital to its operation.

Furthermore, it seems like a bit of a cop-out for the Government to say, on the one hand, that the regulations are reserved and, on the other, that the operating administration is dealt with by local councils. That is not convincing. The Government is basically trying to bat away the issue. More can be done, and more scrutiny is required.

My Glasgow region colleague Pam Duncan-Glancy has given testimony that she has had significant issues with access to buses in Glasgow. In particular, First Bus Glasgow has a policy that only one wheelchair user is permitted per bus. Her husband is also a wheelchair user, so they are regularly split up and have to take two different buses to get somewhere by public transport. That seems appalling, given that there is adequate space on buses for both wheelchairs. Apparently, the company does that in order to preserve space for a potential pram user.

Those things are problematic and need further investigation, so I am minded to invite our colleague to address the committee on this and potentially consider additional submissions.

The petitioner’s submission is harrowing and it would be good to invite her to give evidence orally to the committee if possible. That would be an appropriate first step.

The established protocols to have proof of double vaccination are to be combined with an option to show proof of a negative test. That has been demonstrated to be a reasonable procedure in practice, as most countries across Europe are operating similar protocols. However, I understand that there is potential for deception in the process. It is perhaps for the lead committee to consider how the aims of the legislation can be better achieved through the procedure. There might be opportunities to improve it, such as by introducing liability for those who are found, in the course of random inspection, to have cheated the system. That might introduce a greater incentive to comply with the requirement for honesty from the community as a whole in order to protect one another.

It might be worth seeking submissions from relevant charities that operate in drug treatment, such as Transform. I am sure that the clerks could come up with a potential list of charities from which it might be worth inviting responses.

One of the interesting aspects of the evidence that we received was the suggestion about alternative treatments, with innovations happening at, for example, the Shouldice hospital in Canada. It would therefore be helpful to engage formally with that institution to find out what the people there regard as an appropriate alternative form of treatment. As there was less certainty about what was going to happen in Scotland in that respect, it would help if we could firm up our understanding of what such treatments can offer.

I share the concern that the monitoring processes are not sufficiently mature. The Government’s submission might be sincere, but if the Government is not connected to what is going on in a custody suite in Scotland at any particular time, how would it know any different? The petition has highlighted a blind spot in its monitoring procedures and it is well worth further investigation.

The only other thing that sprang to mind was that we should perhaps seek submissions from the operators at the airports, such as Loganair. I do not know whether there are other airlines or users of the airports that it might be worth contacting to get their understanding of the situation and hear their concerns, as well as hearing from the Scottish Government, HIAL and the trade union.

Although it is encouraging that the Government’s response has indicated the forthcoming legislation, it is important to give the petitioner some degree of assurance that the specifics of the legislation will address the concerns that are outlined in the petition and also perhaps offer a degree of assurance about more immediate measures that could be put in place. In order to satisfy the petitioner’s concerns, a more specific response from the minister would be helpful.